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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Staniforths (bakery)[edit]

Staniforths (bakery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local business without enough indepth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. MarnetteD|Talk 19:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There are 4 independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm trying to add more news sources, but this bakery chain has multiple locations in Yorkshire including Sheffield, Rotherham and Rawmarsh.

• The Star

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StaniforthHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is the creator of and major contributor to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:SIGCOV, not worthy of a page for now. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is not enough independent notability per WP:NCORP. Only two acceptable sources mention the subject bakery: Daily Express (about the shop refusing to serve customers who speak on mobiles here) and Sheffield Star (a capsule review here). The rest of what's already cited and what can be found elsewhere are advertorials (e.g. in the Rotherham Advertiser here), the bakery's own website, an Amazon order form for the owner's book (not to be copied here), listings in small trade mags (such as The Wedding Planner), and a report about the owner (giving an award here). There is just not enough yet out there. -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the name of the bakery is mistakenly written: It should read "Staniforth's". -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gnome. ——SerialNumber54129 12:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- better than the donut shop articles we get from the US, but that's not saying much. I like the mobile phone article cited, but that's not really about the company. Basically a non-notable bakery. Can't see anything else that would establish notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much of what is said by the one editor to support keeping has little connection with policies or guidelines, whereas the arguments for deleting do relate to guidelines. I also note with interest that the quote given by RebeccaGreen from WP:POLOUTCOMES differs significantly from what that page currently says in several respects, including the version she quotes saying "usually" in place of "sometimes", and "degree of electoral success" in place of "lack of electoral success". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqul Islam Masud[edit]

Shafiqul Islam Masud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The following reasons article failed to be notable per WP:POLITICIAN:

• Politicians who not held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or a provincial legislature. Also not been elected to such offices.
• Not a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage about his work to claim his notability.

Just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- No inherent notability in being a unelected politician. In my opinion the subject in question fails WP:NPOL. FitIndia ^Talk 17:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN. Ifnord (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:POLOUTCOMES 'Political figures not elected to public office': "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success". This man is a leader of a Bangladeshi political party, who was imprisoned under the country's Special Power Act for 3 years (contrary to a ruling of the country's Supreme Court prohibiting rearrest without another court hearing when an accused is released on bail, according to a US Department of State report [1]). He was arrested with others, but as the source headlines in the article indicate, he was often the only one named. While some of the sources included in the article are not independent, most are, eg the AsiaPost [2], BD Chronicle [3], and BanglaNews24 [4]. Some sources mentioned in a previous AfD had not been added to the article, eg the Wall Street Journal [5], and The Guardian [6]. He was also arrested again this year [7]. He had not in fact stood for election until this year, when he is currently a candidate in an election to be held on 30 December 2018 (suspiciously close to the date of the AfD). RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and written from fan point of view about a subject that passes non of the notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Erlandson[edit]

Sven Erlandson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After a WP:BEFORE, I don't think this person is notable. They should be mentioned in Spiritual but not religious, but are not notable enough for their own article. Other than being seen by some (not many, I might add) to have popularized that phrase, they've done nothing else that constitutes notability. The current article is also highly promotional, not written in an encyclopedic tone, and most of it's claims are unsourced or poorly sourced. Vermont (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this highly promotional, kakimaze-created, inadequately sourced text about a non-notable person. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Chambers[edit]

Ivan Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable bookseller.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Someone probably mistook Wikipedia for the obituary pages. No sign of Wikinotability whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability, only reference is an obituary --DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus, even the biggest opposer The Gnome changed his opinion to keep (the last post of the AfD). Another good WP:HEY case. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisalla Montenegro[edit]

Lisalla Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP which lacks significant reliable coverage to pass GNG. Her modeling career does not appear notable considering the lack of attention to it in sources, and the only additional pieces I found are in the context of her marriage to retired major leaguer C.J. Wilson. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably KEEP. Coverage in this [8] ( gNews search sure looks like this is a simple WP:BEFORE fail. Merry Christmas to all, And to all, a good night.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, as I already said, the sources are in the context of her marriage to Wilson (NOTINHERITED). Please stop assuming bad faith if you will not take the time to read the sources. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article was poorly sourced when nominated. I did a WP:HEYMANN upgrade. Coverage of Montenegro as a model (Mayballine, Victoria's Secret,) and as half of a "celebrity couple", in articles like "Athlete - Celebrity Couples" in Sports Illustrated, and "Angels pitcher C.J. Wilson and supermodel wife Lisalla Montenegro buy Corona del Mar home for $2.37 million". WP:NOTINHERITED does not prevent a notable individual from having a page, it reads: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people... can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Some spouses are famous just for who they married (Jeanette Rubio.) Montenegro, however, is famous both for her modeling career and for being half of a "celebrity couple." Bottom line: if the coverage passes GNG, it doesn't really matter how fame found you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are you sure about that, E.M.Gregory? If that were the case, why do we have in Wikipedia specific category criteria for notability, such as criteria for actors? If a subject passes WP:ACTOR then it surely passes WP:GNG! After all, everything in Wikipedia must be based on sources. The only reasonable state of affairs is that WP:GNG on its own may not suffice. It's actually written in the very text of WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In so many words, if fame found you, that on its own may not be enough; and how it found you actually does matter. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of coverage thanks to E.M.Gregory, definitely meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is practically nothing out there except news about subject's marriage to a celebrity, a clear case of fame by association. The wording of the relevant policy states that individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Here, the subject is written up and talked about exclusively in texts about her marriage to a celebrity. Not about her but about the marriage. No independent, GNG-level notaibility. In sum : She fails WP:NMODEL. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact check The Gnome's assertion that "the subject is written up and talked about exclusively in texts about her marriage to a celebrity. Not about her but about the marriage" is flatly untrue. Among the sources on the page days before The Gnome's comment are profiles published years before Montenegro met her ballplayer husband: Teen Vogue : Meet Maybelline New York's Newest Face, Lisalla Montenegro, Glamour: Meet Lisalla Montenegro, The Newest Victoria's Secret PINK Model!, and the rest of the sources in subhead "Career" on the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, WP:HEY, I added a little more copy and some additional sources, particularly on the 2010 Maybelline campaign - several years before she met her celebrity spouse.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. The sources cited by E.M.Gregory above somehow were missed by my own search and are evidently reliable. My suggestion must change accordingly to Keep since subject satisfies WP:NMODEL. -The Gnome (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hyponymy and hypernymy. And merge from history where needed. Sandstein 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella term[edit]

Umbrella term (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a textbook, or a publisher of original thought. Covers two different subjects. It seems like the page was written by an amateur lexicographer attempting to instruct readers about these terms by referencing their own personal experience with the terms, a copyrighted dictionary, and one citation of a Chicago Tribune article in which a medical doctor happened to say that glaucoma is "a broad term for a number of different conditions that damage the optic nerve" a quote which someone thought was enough verification to include it on an otherwise uncited list.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The word "umbrella term" has been useful on Wikipedia, and we can see sources in the links above using the term. But if there are no reliable sources, or barely any, discussing use of the term itself, deletion is probably best. We do have articles about terms, but we employ WP:WORDISSUBJECT for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, I do think that the page should point to the Wiktionary entry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the term is used quite a bit (Google Books claims 313000 results for "Umbrella term", with everything from "think tank" to "Asian American" to "learning disability" described as one), but I'm struggling to find anything other than a dictionary definition about the term. Not sure that specific examples would be the basis for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to hypernym. According to this, this, this and this, it should probably redirect to hypernym. Looks like an unintentional WP:CSPLIT (content split) ie. two articles on the same topic. "Umbrella term" is a metaphor while hypernym the linguistic term. Hypernym is found in dictionaries like Oxford but umbrella term is not. -- GreenC 04:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which sets up a set of hurdles before proposing deletion; and an agenda for handling the question. Article can be improved. Sources exist. Content can be expanded. Useful subject and day-to-day concept. That article needs improvement is not a reason to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can recognize the desire to save articles at all cost because deletionists can be overzealous etc.. But in this case, how do you reconcile this article with hypernym? Two articles on the same exact topic. "Umbrella" is just a metaphorical alternative name for hypernym, a slang term for the same thing. What would this article contain that wouldn't belong in the other article? If there were sources that discussed the metaphor itself with society, not just using the metaphor but discussing the metaphor (not the meaning of the metaphor, the metaphor itself), I might agree. Can you provide those sources? Otherwise it's a parallel article to hypernym which goes against WP:CSPLIT (content split) --GreenC 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of hypernym when seeing this article nominated. I did think of "catch-all" (which was a Wikipedia article until recently), because I've seen "umbrella term" replaced with "catch-all" on Wikipedia before. If the article is redirected to the Hyponymy and hypernymy article, it should be mentioned and bolded somewhere in there so that editors know that they've arrived at the right article and so that there is an explanation about the term. MOS:BOLD and all that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes bold name at the top .. this is supported by reliable source see this, this, this and this (there are more) -- they directly assert "Umbrella term" and hypernym are the same. Not just merely giving similar definitions, but directly asserting the two terms are the same thing. -- GreenC 07:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The general concept appears in works such as Umbrella Reviews: Evidence Synthesis with Overviews of Reviews and Meta-Epidemiologic Studies; aming the Standards: A Commonsense Approach to Higher Student Achievement; Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers . Other sources such as this talk of Molar (broad) The mian point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete short articles but that we should group topics together conceptually, rather than by word and title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we should group topics together conceptually, rather than by word and title - agreed. See comments above. "Umbrella term" is a metaphor of the linguistic term hypernym for which we already have an in-depth article. Otherwise please explain why this article is not a content split (CSPLIT), what it contains that is not already in hypernym. -- GreenC 14:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agreeing that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or the like, but we nevertheless have a vast number of articles about terminology, and this one in particular is often used (quite a lot in academia too). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument that we have a vast number of articles about terminology is irrelevant. So is how often the term is used. What matters is if there are sources that discuss the concept in depth.  --Lambiam 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Wikipedia has a clear policy about WP:CSPLIT, this article is a copy of the same subject covered in hypernym. What would this article contain that is not already contained in hypernym? Umbrealla is a metaphor for hypernym. We don't create separate articles for the various metaphors of everything it makes no sense. -- GreenC 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to update the article and the sources. They are not synonymous, although arguably hypernym (a specialized term used mainly by linguists) fits under the [[umbrella term)) (a more generally used phrase). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources directly assert they are synonymous. There is no difference in the meaning. -- GreenC 19:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources, and they feature nuanced defintiions. And you haven't addressed the difference between a technically used term by a narrow population, and a popular term used more generally. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a 'nuanced definition' is probably saying the same thing in so many words. It's fine to have a separate article about a metaphor and the precise term. But you still have to demonstrate there are sources specific about the metaphor itself, otherwise it's a content split, the same topic in two articles. A POV split as well. -- GreenC 21:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Working on it. I've done the research, but I've got to add the content and references. Lots to coalesce. Real life intrudes, and it will be a couple of days. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, perhaps Mr. Guye did do a WP:Before job, but, like the rest of us, saw that the term was being used without the term/topic being defined. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hypernym. Both articles cover the same topic, and if all of the unsourced content were removed from Umbrella term there would be nothing useable left to merge. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy (which is the redirect target of Hypernym) per Dlthewave. The article contains a short description in the lead section, and the rest is a mostly unsourced list of examples. — Newslinger talk 10:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect It is not an article on its own, I too believe it's better redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Museum[edit]

Davis Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, I find no reliable sources covering either a Davis Museum in Barcelona or a Davis Lisboa Mini-Museum, just a bunch of social media presences. Largoplazo (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on those facts, it seems more of an advertisement for the museum than an actual article (especially with the wording). --Sky Sushi (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is substantially promotional/POV now since being edited by Davislisboa, who was preceded by Davismuseum, though the latter user's changes were reverted. The article had a history before that—though it isn't clear to me that the version before these edits was substantially less POV, and, anyway, notability is the sine qua non issue here. Largoplazo (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does seem to be a POV article. Could we perhaps check if the IP addresses on the account are somehow associated with the museum? -Sky Sushi (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of significant independent coverage, not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this PROMO for a non-notable work of conceptual art dubbed "Davis museum" by its creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Futsal players are not covered by NFOOTY. No reliable sources have been presented in support of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Etminan[edit]

Naser Etminan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BLP, and WP:SPORTBIO. Sheldybett (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I do not see the reason for the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.58.255.87 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry the delete arguments are not good enough for me; Iranian Futsal Super League states that it is a professional league and this player plays in it. So could the nominator please give a full and correct explanation why this player fails these criteria's. Other than the league page stating it's a professional league as I don't really know Futsal in Iran, it's hard to make a judgement on a player article without all the facts. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Govvy: where is the evidence that this is a fully-professional league as required by WP:NFOOTBALL. I'm sure you don't need reminding that WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE. GiantSnowman 11:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I wasn't asking you GS, I was asking Sheldybett to be clearer in his/her nomination. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - do international futsal caps qualify under WP:NFOOTY? If so, and if it can be proven that the player has been capped by Iran, that would be enough for a keep. If not, then he clearly fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. 21.colinthompson (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @21.colinthompson: There is FIFA Futsal World Cup which is highly recognised and Iran take part in it, if it's established that this player has played then I would pass him under NFooty. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the player fails WP:GNG/WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer talk 20:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After reviewing Futsal database for Olympics and FIFA I can't seem to find this name there to even verify any national caps. There for I am going to say delete. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O. Henry Pun-Off[edit]

O. Henry Pun-Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable competition with only one refernce that does not even seem to mention the competion and a good chunk of the article is a list of winners. Also the rules section seems to be a copyvio of punoff.com/pun-off-rules with just some extra words sprinkled in. might be notable in the long run but the article would require extesive rewriting as it reads more like an eassy then an article TheMesquito^buzz 21:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but reduce (and remove any copyvio). [9] [10] [11] should be enough coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to William Sidney Porter House. Anything that is sourced here could easily be integrated in the sparse paragraph there. The description of the rules and the list of winners are likely copyright violations and are wholly unnecessary in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources such as those presented by power~enwiki; AfD is not clean-up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gambo[edit]

Gambo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet GNG; insufficient RS coverage. Significant coverage appears only in fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources cited seems legit to me. Also see corresponding German article.
• Keep There are multiple reliable sources and without checking the pages of each cited book there is no reason to believe they are insignificant. Meets GNG. Citrivescence (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the German article seems reasonable, and AGF for the in-print sources, this seems sufficiently justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - ref retrieved from Chinese page: https://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/02/. While this may be a blog, the author is a “palaeozoologist affiliated with the University of Southampton, UK”. It shows independent coverage. AGF for off-line sources, and together I believe that this shows that there is significant coverage. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that blog cites some sources specifically about Gambo, including "Anon. 1997. In search of Gambo. Animals & Men 14, 11-13." and "Downes, J. 1997. Mission Impossible: the search for ‘Gambo’. Uri Geller’s Encounters 9, 50-53." that are not used in this article yet. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Willunga, South Australia#Media. Since it's already been merged, I guess. Sandstein 11:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe FM[edit]

Tribe FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a radio station, not properly sourced as meeting WP:NMEDIA. While this certainly appears, as written, to be a licensed and fully operational station that creates some of its own original programming, there's a fourth condition that radio stations also have to meet to qualify for Wikipedia articles: its meeting of the other three criteria has to be verifiable in reliable sources that are fully independent of it. However, the only references here are its own self-published website about itself, and routine entries in the member directories of community radio organizations it's a member of. No matter what a radio station claims about itself, the notability test still requires some evidence of media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I didn't catch that requirement when I read through it. Anyway, delete as I cannot find independent, in-depth reliable sources verifying any of the criteria, failing WP:GNG and WP:V. Not to be confused with a Papua New Guinea station of the same name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is this reference, which provides Government vetted statutory information about the organisation and hence goes some real way to providing core depth, and verifiability. There is also this not entirely independent reference but none-the-less most probably reliable reference providing some real depth. But I too cannot find any broad or sustained coverage (other than many routine directory listings). Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Willunga, South Australia#Media. Insufficient coverage to suppport notability in its own right, but sufficient for some due weight material in its home place article. (There is also this Government administrative reference). Aoziwe (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect ... I agree with the suggestion immediately above and have copied/edited content from this article, and placed it over at Willunga, South Australia. Thanks for making the suggestion. I haven't done the redirect, as I don't know how to... and thought it better to let this conversation play out first. --Danimations (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Exile in Guyville. Consensus that notability is lacking. Reasonable consensus that it may serve at least some benefit as a redirect (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (Liz Phair song)[edit]

Flower (Liz Phair song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no sources and is not a particularly notable song of hers. An external link to “MetroLyrics” is irrelevant and certainly contributes nothing. Redirect to Exile in Guyville if you must. Trillfendi (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Exile in Guyville. The subject is not notable enough to have its own article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Exile in Guyville. The album only made it to the lower part of the Top Heatseekers chart at number 14 in 1994. Good enough for album article, not good enough for each single to have an article (unless charted high enough). --Sky Sushi (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable and this title is not likely to be useful as a redirect. The entry at Flower_(disambiguation)#Songs will suffice (and should be pointed at the album if this is deleted) in the unlikely event that anyone searches for this song. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We’re talking about redirecting to her album Exile in Guyville, not all songs with the general name Flower.Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm not sure what you don't understand about my comment. There is currently an entry for this song at Flower (disambiguation) which points here. If it's pointed at the album instead, this article can be deleted. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Exile in Guyville due to lack of coverage to prove notability. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free and open-source ATS[edit]

Free and open-source ATS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Seems like advertisement. AhmadLX (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors comments to me (russh, original author of the page) were that there were not notable sources available. This differs from the comments above. A simple google search indicates that the following are authoritative for the industry;

https://blog.capterra.com/top-8-freeopen-source-applicant-tracking-software-solutions/

https://recruitingheadlines.com/10-free-applicant-tracking-systems/

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-open-source-recruitment-platform

These can replace the sources currently linked in the article.

Note that your comment regarding 'github pages are not reliable sources' - those links were to the respective Licensing for each project and therefore were absolutely a link to the authoritative source. russh (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:GNG. WP:PRODUCT suggests we could merge or redirect to the organization or company that first created it but that's not entirely clear from the article. Ifnord (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. E.M.Gregory pretty much saved this case with his work on the article, from where comes the consensus that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rose (author)[edit]

Simon Rose (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any evidence this person meets WP:NAUTHOR, at least not in the standard review places and there is no coverage about this Simon Rose that I can dig up. Golden Eagle Award (not to be confused with any of these) doesn't appear to be notable either. Praxidicae (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep per nom. Seems like a cool guy who does some neat writing workshops for kids. Unfortunately, my searches turned up nothing more than a defunct blogspot article interviewing him back in 2004, and primary sources. I was able to find proof he had two books, one nominated for the Silver Birch award, and another nominated for the Willow Diamond award. However I don't think either are notable awards (plus the books did not win anyway), so considering that I wouldn't count the author or his works to be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone encyclopedia page. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 00:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed nomination in light of sourcing and hard work done by E.M.Gregory. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 22:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:NAUTHOR. The place is crawling with monochromatic lepidoptera. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The best sources I'm able to find are this and this. They aren't nothing, but not enough to clear GNG, in my view. Vanamonde (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Weak keep. The journal review, combined with the news sources I linked above, are enough to push me to keep, but only just. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEY, can we punt? A quick archive search seems to show SIGCOV coverage of him early in the century. I'd like to allow editors time to take a close look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing editor, book reviews, feature story coverage exists. But lack of access to news archives makes it difficult for Nom, editors to find it. Just added a book review. I really think that this discussion needs to cintinue for another week, to give editors time to source this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:HEYMANN upgrade begun. Passes WP:AUTHOR. As Nom wrote, page was started by an SPA. However, Nom, other editors above show no indication of having run news archive searches, which are essential in evaluating a career that mostly took place in the 2000s. I have added some - by no means all - of the coverage that exists. His hometown paper, the Edmonton Journal has covered him intensely over the years, lots of feature stores about him, or focused on him in a group with one or two other writers. This is a major big-city and regional daily paper; if this was the Podunkville Daily Report it would't have much weight, but teh Edmonton Journal cannot be dismissed as mere local coverage. More significantly, the Calgary Herald has reviewed his books, and The Province (Britsh Columbia) wrote him up. I have not been exhaustive in my searches, merely picked some low-hanging fruit from a Proquest archive search. Also removed the PROMO form page. I am not arguing that he is a world famous writer. Only that his books and career have garnered sufficient WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Podunkville Daily Report ? -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely meets WP:AUTHOR with the sources found by E.M.Gregory, and others including reviews in the journals Canadian Children's Book News, School Library Journal, Library Media Connection, and Teacher Librarian. I will add some of these to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per the hard work of E.M.Gregory. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY - NAUTHOR seems demonstrated. I would guess by Gnome's joke that he's seen the changes, but if the other Delete !votes could have a look that would be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DeniedClub and Vanamonde:@Vanamonde93: per Nosebagbear's suggestion; .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can still be editorially created if considered worthwhile. Sandstein 11:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chadwick (Levellers)[edit]

Mark Chadwick (Levellers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While this member of The Levellers has some activity outside the group, there doesn't seem to be enough on his own to warrant a standalone article. I admit this is borderline, but to end an edit dispute going on, I'm bringing it to AfD. An editor keeps recreating the article, without improving the sourcing. Personally I don't feel he meets either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Levellers (band) per nom, I feel that this member fails WP:GNG. Very, very close though (and no objection to re-creation if more coverage occurs). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: I can't see that he clearly meets any of the MUSICBIO criteria (GNG~=MUSICBIO#1). Nor do his solo albums All the Pieces and Moment (Mark Chadwick album), which are listed at Levellers (band)#Solo recordings and side projects, clearly meet WP:NALBUM. The articles for these are not much help, and it's questionable whether some of the (few) reviews are from WP:RS (eg see https://www.readjunk.com/contact/); his solo albums look of marginal notability at best and likely redirection candidates. FWIW, I may switch to a Weak Keep on a WP:NPOINTS basis if the albums were consolidated to his article with reliably sourced qualitative coverage added. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Delete: per Michig's identification correct redirect. As an alternative, it might be reasonable to change this to a redirect and do a move without redirect over Mark Chadwick (musician) to preserve material.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above and the other AfD. Non-notable outside the band. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flooded with them hundreds 09:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Look at the history before voting! The reason this has been brought to AfD is because several people have already decided that the article should be redirected to the band, have done so, but were reverted by the article creator with no improvements. Also note that this has happened for two different article titles: the present Mark Chadwick (Levellers) and the forgotten Mark Chadwick (musician). So a vote to simply redirect, which we have above, solves nothing because if that is the AfD result, it will just get reverted yet again. The best solution here is possibly redirect to the band with protection to prevent more reverts and re-creations. The multiple existing redirects should be cleaned up too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true but usually protection is requested separately at WP:RFPP, pointing to the discussion and after an admin is satisfied there have been attempts of undoing the outcome of the AfD. Flooded with them hundreds 10:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen admins initiate protection at this stage of the process if the result of the AfD is "redirect" and there is evidence that redirects have been reverted in the past with no good reason, as is definitely the case here. Don't know if that's standard procedure though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to the band article really. The article with the correct disambiguation has already been redirected to the band article. There's no value keeping this as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is towards the keep option ever since the first relist. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Sweden[edit]

List of churches in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an odd list with thousands of churches in a country listed individually, almost all of which are red links which are unlikely to become articles. And there is almost no information included about each church building, most of the entries don't even list which city the church is located in so I'm not sure if the list could be broken down into useful smaller categories. Most lists of churches on Wikipedia are broken down by locality/city (see Category:Lists of churches in Denmark) or are lists of cathedrals or basilicas, not every single church building in a country. I'm not sure that this list serves a function that couldn't be obtained by looking in a phone book (they still exist, right?). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No objection to breaking into smaller lists but the deletion rationale is ridiculous. That it needs breaking into smaller lists is not an argument for deletion, it is an argument for keeping in another form. I'm not sure whether I should take the comment about being able to use a phone book instead seriously or not, but I'll respond anyway as it is the only actual deletion rationale in this nom. In my country, there is no phone book that covers the whole country and that probably applies to Sweden too. I only have a local phone book. My yellow pages does not have a section for churches. Even if it did, that would not help me find, for instance, churches in Birmingham. The very idea that something should be deleted from Wikipedia because the information can be found in a book.... well, where do we start—is there any information on Wikipedia that can't be found in a book? Probably only pages that should be deleted. SpinningSpark 00:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How about WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:NOTWHITE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia articles are not simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.. This seems like a textbook case of a page that is a directory listing with no context.

Have you looked at this page? It is simply a list of the names of churches in Sweden in alphabetical order. For most of the list, there is no city or location listed. The vast majority of churches on the list do not have their own entry. If this was a list a of churches in Sweden who have a Wikipedia article, it would be a curated list of major church facilities/cathedrals instead of the mess this list is. I don't know how this page would be subdivided when there is no basis to know where most of these churches are located. I don't know if even Swedish editors would know where all of these individual churches are.

And I don't know where you live, Spinningspark but where I've lived in the U.S., you can go to your local yellow pages (when these were commonly around) and find lists of churches (by denomination) and synagogues in the area the directory covered.. It was very convenient if, like me, you study religion and like to visit different churches. It was very handy. But it was not encyclopedic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Yes, this list is difficult to use. Yes, it's deficient in referencing. But if we are going to accept lists of churches as valid entries then this one should be accepted too. By all means clean up, but you are on the wrong venue for that. Your yellow pages still won't find you churches in Birmingham unless you actually live in Birmingham. It certainly won't find you churches in Sweden. SpinningSpark 09:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in case no one has noticed, all three of the policy links go to the same place, so all equally inapplicable. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it any more convincing. SpinningSpark 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but clean up. Delete all the redlinked entries (plus the utterly generic Baptist Church) and add the lists in category:Lists of churches in Denmark Sweden, which are far from comprehensive (for example, the first two bluelinked entries are not in any of the lists). At some point, someone may come along and create lists by county, at which time this could be renamed Lists of churches in Sweden. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Clarityfiend: Denmark? SpinningSpark 09:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there may be a useful list here, but this needs to be rethought before anything else. What is a church? Do we count only congregations having some sort of official recognition? While much of religion in Sweden is through the official Church of Sweden, there are many other Churches. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Sweden has 40 congregations. On the other hand, just looking at the current article there are links that do not even lead to articles that have anything to do with this subject. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of directories. This article is not within the scope of Wikipedia's purpose. Something limited to Churches of the Church of Sweden might work, but even then I am not convinced that every congregation of that Church that ever existed is worth including in a massive list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the page as it stands is not very useful or encyclopedic: while almost all of the entries refer to church buildings there are also a few that are congregations or even denominations. I agree with John Pack Lambert that this needs to be re-thought, but I think that a list of notable church buildings (or a set of such lists, divided by province or county, given that there are potentially many hundreds of such buildings) would be much more encyclopedically relevant than a list of congregations - that is, maybe such lists would also be notable but it's a different thing. I'd like to copy this list to my user space, remove the entries that are obviously denominations/congregations rather than buildings, and work on sorting the existing list entries by county. In the current list, some entries mention the municipality, some the province, and many don't give any indication of where in the country the church is locatd... it really is a mess. --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not seeing anything that suggests this is a list of congregations, just church buildings. Maybe it should be renamed List of church buildings in Sweden (or Denmark) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only obviously non-building church I found reading through the list is Baptist church, so I agree that in the most part it's a list of church buildings. Including Danmarks kyrka. Wham2001 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. I agree with Bonadea that the list in its current form is not useful, but that a properly-curated set of lists of notable church buildings in Sweden would be an asset to the encyclopedia. In my opinion their offer to rework the list is a generous one and we should take it up. Skimming through the list I blue-linked Dalby kyrka by adding a redirect; I mention this as a caution that there may be other churches for which we have an article which is not correctly linked in the list. Wham2001 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are many buildings in Sweden that can be listed , hospitals,universities, schools, restaurants,. . .it is not an article.Alex-h (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally thousands of churches in the country, we don't need to list them all. It would be more suited to have more specific lists, by region, of notable ones only, but not a countrywide list. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The scope is at least too wide, notice that we don't have List of churches in England or List of churches in the United States, though there is List of churches in Pakistan. Also the Swedish Wikipedia its self doesn't have an article on this. If it is kept it should probably be broken down into smaller regions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - And re-format the List. As it currently stands it is not optimal. But that is no reason for deletion of a useful List. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST rationales of some above in favour of deletion has no baring un Wikipedia rationales.BabbaQ (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:LISTN per sources such as Nordic Folk Churches and Modern Churches in Sweden. See also WP:CLN which makes it clear that categories do not supersede lists. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I would guess this is copied from the Swedish WP. I expect it has articles on many of them, which could no doubt be used to provide English ones. Organising the list by county (lan) might be helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might assume that, but it isn't. It doesn't exist on Swedish Wikipedia, although strangely, it does exist on the Norwegian Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 17:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems like a perfectly fine topic for a list, but it's currently running afoul of WP:NOT, being indiscriminate. Purge non-notable churches; retain the blue links and the list itself. It can be broken up, but there will likely be churches in areas that don't have a lot of other churches, so a centralized list for those that aren't spun out will probably make sense. Regardless, that can be handled on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and a good option would be moving to "Churches in Sweden" and addition of a few descriptive words for every church of the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : Does Wikipedia have enough red ink? This must be a record for entries with red links. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't put money on that. In the early days of Wikipedia, creating long lists of redlinks was an accepted way of getting the encyclopaedia going. Not easy to find them now of course. There's not a "used to be red" colour for links. SpinningSpark 12:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This needs to be cleaned up not deleted. I searched for Acklinga Church (second on the list). Wikimedia Commons has pictures of the church, Wikipedia Sweden has an article and references for the church, a search of google.se returned a site about the churches of Sweden published in collaboration with the Church of Sweden. I also found genealogical results for this churc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have just started, but of the 4 churches I've looked at, all 4 have an article on wikipedia.se. I am adding a link to those articles as well as adding city names. Later, I can regroup the churches probably alphabetically by city then by church name. I will delete anything that isn't a church (someone mentioned congragations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I am now working my way through the list. All but one or two so far have articles on Swedish Wikipedia that I'm linking to. I have added places as well, but have decided to sort the churches by County, Municipality, Church/town. That will be easier and there will be fewer links. Working on sort list on my sandbox page. (sorry, I keep forgetting to sign this) Aurornisxui (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note still in the early stages, but many of the churches I have looked at are historical buildings, protected buildings, etc. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a valid list per above, but needs to be cleaned up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an experienced editor has offered to clean up the list so that the nomination issues are addressed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbird[edit]

Bbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Biggest claim to notability is a nomination to a non-notable new award. Cabayi (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See above. Collaborations with other notable artists doesn't mean notability in and of itself. Perhaps when more success has been earned, then this article can come back. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umedia VFX[edit]

Umedia VFX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP EDIT- User who created article has umedia at the end of their username. Seems like an instance of UPE. Kb03 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I take on paid edits occasionally and if I had been given this company, I wouldn't have accepted the job. Impressive list of films, but unsubstantiated and poorly referenced (none in-line) and far too many social media links. At best, needs a thorough cleanup, but deletion is probably the best option. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Goswami[edit]

Sameer Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. The PROD was removed by the article's creator after contacting the subject to provide more information. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Was deleted already in 2008 here. I don't see much evidence of why that should be any different now. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject has done enough work to become notable however this is a big problem with Indians specially Hindi people that they do not get enough exposer in English online media. If telephonic talk can consider by WP for article that content can keep otherwise creator/improver should give references. My vote Keep Article. 2402:8100:3847:A9DC:356A:DA5F:DC63:9C09 (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC) — 2402:8100:3847:A9DC:356A:DA5F:DC63:9C09 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep There is a dearth of classic hindi audiobooks and subject seems to be the first to provide large volumes of high quality work freely available. My vote is to keep the article. Asitjain (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC) — Asitjain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Sameer goswami has done good work in ll india radio his on air show filmi chakra connects the youth with the great artist of indian film and music industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeersaheb (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC) — Abeersaheb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete & Salt and as per nominator. Azkord (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge, Since less coverage but Subject looking notable so should Merge with Storytelling or Storyteller2405:204:E189:4C1C:60F9:9F18:4427:2990 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:E189:4C1C:60F9:9F18:4427:2990 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and salt - clear failure of all relevant criteria; I am also strongly opposed to the suggestion to merge given by the user above Spiderone 11:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The former due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG, and the latter due to the input from spa editors. Simply deleting will most likely simply lead to recreation, and creating more work for other editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines. The SPAs indicate salting is in order as well. Ifnord (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Deshpande (actress)[edit]

Sunita Deshpande (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and they simply don't meet WP:NACTOR as of yet. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possibly WP:TOOSOON but a recurring role on a fairly notable American series would be enough for me. Close call though. Edit: Having re-read the WP:NACTOR guidelines, subject doesn't conform to multiple appearances. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Search results mostly talk about the writer Sunita Deshpande. Sdmarathe (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait It is a close call, creator need to give reference filmography.2402:8100:3847:A9DC:356A:DA5F:DC63:9C09 (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per delete votes above Spiderone 11:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newman Special School[edit]

Newman Special School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local school, with only local or routine coverage, fails our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with user Fram's reasoning. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there's simply no basis for notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Private[edit]

Bitcoin Private (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. At this point the article serves as an ad for a failing "project" and there aren't good enough sources to explain why it's a failing project. There was "Rhett Creighton - The "Serial Forker" Now Wants Bitcoin Prime". Then "Hacker Livestreams 51% Attack on Bitcoin Private" which is a big deal for a cryptocurreny but no mainstream coverage though it was later referenced in a CoinDesk article "This College Freshman Is Out to 51% Attack Your Cryptocurrency". And recently "Coinmetrics report: Over 2 million Bitcoin Private tokens were covertly premined, breaking the 21 million supply cap" also a big deal that I doubt will get non-crypto news coverage. Џ 06:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very little substantial mainstream RS coverage that I could find. Bloomberg coverage is about future plans, Yahoo coverage is a Coindesk reprint - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note that it's an interesting and controversial topic inside the crypto world, e.g. [12] - so it's not impossible coverage could break out. But it really hasn't yet, and this would make it a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just another coin in a sea of such coins, really nothing special, and given recent events, unlikely to catch on anytime soon. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject of the article does not seem to be notable enough, and its sources do not seem to be appropriate for encyclopedic standards. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if, though very unlikely, more coverage shows up, it could be re-created. Simply has not received enough coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the GNG at the moment. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horst Kutscher[edit]

Horst Kutscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person "notable" only for being the 36th person to do a not inherently notable thing. This could get him an article if he were really well sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG, but it's not an inclusion freebie that guarantees him an article just because he existed. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was swaying towards the nom's POV - I don't think that being the 36th person to be killed in a particular conflict or by an oppressive dictatorship is enough to be notable - but the Google Books search threw up a lot of references to his attempt at crossing. This book has an entire chapter on him. This one gives him a paragraph. More references appear available in German and a check of the DE wiki page shows a references to several pages in a book about him. This leaves WP:1E, but that would require a page covering the event to redirect/merge to and I don't see the point of starting a page called "The shooting of Horst Kutscher". I think it's important to keep WP:NEXIST in mind - if you think an article could be written based on RSs, then this is enough to substantiate keeping. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is now sourced. The subject is written about on many Berlin Wall sites and in German news sites as well as in books. The subject clearly passes WP:BIO and meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. Google book search was the first thing I did before even coming here, as usually victim of the wall have extensive writeup. Agathoclea (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Education Outcomes[edit]

General Education Outcomes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An essay-like WP:DICTDEF of a generic term. It simply refers to the outcomes of general education, and gives nothing but definitions. Most of the content isn't referenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:DICTDEFEpiphyllumlover (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus for keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Woolf[edit]

Raphael Woolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod was removed without improvement. While accomplished and a published author, does not meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), distinguished professors are notable and "Professors" in the UK are equivalent to distinguished professors (see List_of_academic_ranks#United_Kingdom). On the other hand, I think a person with three notable books meets GNG or WP:Author. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would agree with the distinguished professor title, except the source clearly identifies him as a "reader", not professor, which according to your link above does not equate to distinguished professor.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You can see that on his page at King's and also here.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pirhayati. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of his books. (On the other hand, I'd be more impressed if more of them were authored rather than edited, and I'm not convinced we need a separate article for each book.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Piette[edit]

Daniel J. Piette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Arguements from prior AfD in 2009 centered on how important his job is, but that was not then and is not now an indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In addition to lack of third-party coverage, the amount of red links in the article indicate overall lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A non notable company allowed to have an article due to technicalities. I guarantee the page views for this article will be very low so YAY. (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EclecticIQ[edit]

EclecticIQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Passing mentions, routine announcements, PR and blog sources. Maybe a case of too soon. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP being met. JC7V (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for meeting WP:CORP. I looked at [13] and [14] and thought it sufficient without looking at the other dozen-plus references. Ifnord (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ifnord, In an alternate reality this got AFD deleted JC7V (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom[edit]

Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The list is one big violation of No original research, as it combines primary sources with non-trivial calculations in order to reach implications not stated in any sources - the point of the list is clearly to posit that some of the given sites are better than others.

The title is broad - it's a "comparison" of certain services - but the list very, very specifically covers commission and fee-related figures. It's not a true comparison of the websites, which I would expect to include things like number of visitors per month, amount of money transferred annually etc.

I'm surprised that the previous deletion discussion ended in no consensus. This is a topic with no significant secondary coverage, and the article is a coatrack being used to make a point about how much online donation services take away from their charities. A worthy point, but not one to be made on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not only a big original research fail but practically all the content is to do with fees or monetary costs, a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Interesting as this table is, it is a WP:SYNTH distilling particular features which is not in itself a suitable encyclopaedic topic. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research Spiderone 11:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless Online charity donation service is notable enough to be given its own article on Wikipedia, I do not see the rationale to have such an article on Wikipedia. —Madrenergic^talk 16:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Web Academy[edit]

Social Web Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Verifiability and notability concerns. This seems to be a neologism created by/for the defunct KOMUNIKI project [15], the Siemens references don't mention this term, and the German ones appear to be about "Competence management". Appears to have been written by SPAs on all 6 wikis currently with an article on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Џ 07:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Optic[edit]

Imagine Optic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Although there are a number of references in the article, only one that I was able to check mentioned the company that is the subject of the article, and that only in passing. A quick WP:BEFORE check brings up numerous passing mentions, usually mentioning the use of equipment manufactured by the company, but no significant coverage of the company itself. Created in exchange for undisclosed payments and promotional in tone, this article is not suitable for Wikipedia as it stands, and the topic itself does not appear to meet our criteria for inclusion. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per Db-g11 tag. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness Cambodia[edit]

Awareness Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I PRODded this organization a few months ago for lack of RS but the PROD was declined. I checked Google today for additional sources and only this 1 came up, which I don't think counts as significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Citrivescence (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete – fails GNG and it is an advertisement (G11 criteria for speedy deletion). Even after doing research for about 5 minutes, absolutely nothing relevant or sufficient for any notability guidelines turned up. The maintenance tag saying it is written like an advertisement is correct (similar to this AfD). At best, WP:TNT could be enacted, but more sources need to be found first. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of my above comment, I have tagged a Db-g11 to the article. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Princess Dubbings[edit]

Disney Princess Dubbings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Isn't this trivial. The page is based on one single article listed below. Adding all voice actors on the individual princess pages might be better(if not already present) Daiyusha (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article, at least as it stands now, is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It gives no reliable sources, and no sufficient evidence that the subject is notable. Ktrimi991 (talk)
• Delete I concur with user Ktrimi991's reasoning. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 15:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete it its my first article and it would make me sad if you did :c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102oooleh (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@102oooleh: I suggest you copy the content of the article and keep it as a draft. You can work slowly to improve it with references and more content. After you feel ready, you can ask experienced editors to have a look at it. As you are inexperienced on Wikipedia, trying to improve existing articles would help you gain experience and better understand the entire process. Feel free to ask experienced editors, including me, for help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't forget this is the English-language Wikipedia. Unless dubbing voice actors have more fame than outside their usual series (see the Spanish voicers of Los Simpson and the infamous circle of German voicers that seem to dub every American series), we usually don't list foreign dub actors here per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is too much information of low interest to a layperson. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Wikipedia isn't a directory of animated characters dubbed in other languages and it certainly doesn't cross categorise, particularly towards Disney princesses. Ajf773 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It isn't even notable. Fails various criteria for notability per WP:NOTABILITY Felicia (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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