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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Braimah[edit]

Clifford Braimah (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)

During discussions at this article's DYK nomination, as well as WT:DYK, some concerns were raised if Braimah was notable per our guidelines. A search reveals some coverage about him, mostly routine coverage such as news of his appointment, and statements by him. There also appears to be some coverage about an alleged plot to unseat him as head of Ghana Water. He also appears to have won an award, but it is unsure if the said award is notable in Ghana (the magazine that gave it, Humanity Magazine International, does not have an article). In the interest of the DYK nomination moving forward, as it has stalled, this AfD is to test for consensus on whether or not Braimah meets our notability guidelines, or if the coverage on him is significant enough. This nomination is procedural and I am neutral on his notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is Ghana Water a government-appointed national position? If so, he likely passes WP:NPOL. (Don't have time to do more of a search at the moment.) SportingFlyer talk 23:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The article states that he was appointed by a Minister, so he was technically government appointed. WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are vague on the matter of if a position parallel to him is inherently notable: WP:POLOUTCOMES (an essay, but still) argues that only cabinet-level appointed officials are generally considered inherently notable, but the page also has this relevant quote: "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." So the main topic for discussion here is if the coverage on him is enough to establish notability (and I personally am slightly leaning towards a weak yes, though of course that's for this discussion to decide). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know why you pinged me, except that I inserted the above search template into the DYK nomination template after your comments. This could have been done on that template, and this AFD is over-kill. I don't live in that part of the world, and I don't have the knowledge to determine this. In the United States, where I live, appointed positions on any level of government are notable. Anything else is a civil service job where you have to fill out an application. Truly, I don't know why you opened this and just didn't keep it in one place at DYK. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started an AfD at the suggestion of BlueMoonset, and a previous discussion of the subject on WT:DYK also suggested an AFD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. You already had a response on the DYK template that this person is notable. Your response to that was to open this AFD. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, if your intent at the DYK template was to say that the person was notable, it was not at all clear to me. I saw it as showing a tool for investigating a person's notability (or topic's), not as a statement that the tool would show that they were. DYK is a far from ideal place to determine notability, while AfD is the definitive one. Can you please tell me which response at the template said the person was notable, because I just don't see it, and since I'm the one who urged Narutolovehinata5 to bring this here so there could be a determination of notability, that would mean that I'm the forum shopper, and such was in no way my intent. (The DYK nominator seems to have washed their hands as regards to notability.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I wasn't seeing the updated version of the nomination page at the main DYK nominations page for some reason when I posted the above, so I didn't realize Mary Mark Ockerbloom had posted a comment about notability; the latest thing I saw was Crosstemplejay's month-and-a-half-old comment. My apologies. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Repeating my quoted material from the DYK: "Regarding notability: There are news articles from at least a dozen different sources quoted on the page, and in at least eight of those Clifford Braimah is specifically mentioned in the headline, either by name or as the Managing Director of the GWCL, or as the GWCL Boss. I think he'd pass a notability argument." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) To expand on my reasoning, that he's mentioned in the headline suggests to me that he is a major figure in the story; 12 sources could pass tests for multiple, secondary, and independent. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about Ghana to know which ones are reliable, but I think he's close to meeting the basic criteria. FURTHER, as noted above by SportingFlyer, I think he would pass via WP:NPOL as a politician holding national office -- he's a political appointee to the head of the national water supplier. South Africa is dealing with significant issues around water, cf. UNDESA: it's an important position. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for close - It appears this AFD was opened as a result of miscues in good faith communications. Can an uninvolved editor please close this out? The conversation should resume on the DYK template where it started. — Maile (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I closed this as nomination withdrawn, per a comment on my talk page this is not the case. Szzuk (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this was not a proxy nomination on my behalf, and I had not "withdrawn" the nomination in my comment above, just apologized for not having been aware of the changed state at DYK. I have no opinion on the AfD's continuation here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the discussion here and on the nomination page, I think it would be for the best to simply withdraw this AfD and let the DYK nomination run its course. The DYK nomination has been unfairly stalled for quite a while now and it's time for it to move forward. Szzuk, please do the honors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Stenson[edit]

Bailey Stenson (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've thought about it for a while, and I think Stenson does not meet WP:NCOLLATH for several reasons.

1. Even though she was part of a national championship team, she has not won a national award as an individual student-athlete, only two honorable mention all-Pac-10 Conference honors. Thus, she fails NCOLLATH criterion 1.
2. Regarding criterion 3 about "national media attention as an individual", she has been featured in ESPN and The Oklahoman for surviving leukemia - but that is practically the extent of her "national media attention" from her college career. Surviving leukemia is not in itself sufficient for WP:GNG. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourcing is adequate to meet WP:BASIC. cbratbyrudd (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's entirely possible to fail specialized criteria in sports and still meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, but looking at GeneralOnefile, Highbeam, Questia, and Newspaperarchive.com, I can't find any in depth sustained coverage to support that in this case. If the coverage is out there somewhere I'd be willing to accept it if someone can find it and cite it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks the level of sustained coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. DaveApter (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Oceania Wrestling Championships[edit]

2018 Oceania Wrestling Championships (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)

Boilerplate article about this year's individual running of a sporting event. There's no evidence being shown here that the event is notable at all -- there isn't even a basic overview article about the Oceania Wrestling Championships at all, and the only source being cited here is the event's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. And apart from a single sentence stating that the event "will" happen (except that the date on which it will happen is now two months into the past), the only other content here is still-blank medal tables. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can show some evidence that this event is actually notable enough for an article, but there's literally no value in holding onto it in this form if nobody's actually updating it with properly sourced results at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No information that the overarching event is notable, let alone this years. If it were a notable concept, I'd consider userfying per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it isn't. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is an article stating that the event did exist. Is this worthy of being an article on its own as its hasn't been worked on it. To be honest I don't know on that front so I am going to stay neutral in this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waralee Saensong[edit]

Waralee Saensong (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)

Subject not shown to meet the notability guidelines. This has been repeatedly userfied, and disputed by the creator, resulting in a minor move war. I'm thus bringing it to AfD in order to settle the matter at a proper discussion venue. Paul_012 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: She was certainly in the squad, but did not play a game. I expect her to reach the notability threshhold some time in the next few years, but she isn't there yet. StAnselm (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Request: I see that there are similar pages too. For eg, Annemijn Thomson has a page without playing any First Class/List-A/Twenty20 match. She was also a part of international squad but did not get a chance t play any international match. I want somebody to guide me by providing logical rationale on why one page is allowed to stay, whereas the other one is being nominated for deletion. Regards,Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and StAnselm. For Thomson, she played in the 2015 T20 Qualifier, which meets the last point of #2 of WP:NCRIC. The article creator has shown time and time again that they don't understand WP:NCRIC, creating multiple n/n article, despite being told on their talkpage not to do so. I think the next logical step, if this continues, would be a topic-ban. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not want to increase/waste the time and effort of all and sundries. All I requested for was for the rationale for allowing page-creation of Annemijn Thomson, when this person too hasn't played any matches. I assure the Wikipedia team that I will adhere to the notability criteria. Good that Lugnuts commented on this. I have asked this question directly on his talk page as well. Regards,Vikram Maingi (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without dragging this out, you DO increase/waste the time and effort of all and sundries with your article creations. Either they don't meet the notabiltiy requirements, or they are of an incredibly poor quality, that need the time and effort of other editors to clean up to a minimum quality you'd expect of a new article. I strongly suggest you take this advice and avoid content creation of living people and focus on other areas of work. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the argument: I still don't understand why the page Annemijn Thomson should stay why Waralee Saensong should be deleted. Both the pages are of ditto quality. Both the persons haven't played any international match. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why in this AfD. Just more proof that you simply don't understand what you are doing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point accepted Lugnuts. Team may delete this page or else move it to my User space. And trust me, I want to learn from your good things and improve the pages.Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 13:51, 29 July 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 Mercedes Lackey bibliography#The Dragon Jousters. This did not need an AfD. Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon Jousters series[edit]

The Dragon Jousters series (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)

Unsourced since 2009. Article creator inactive since 2013. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS either for the series or for any of the novels in the tetralogy, and I smell WP:OR. I propose not delete but blank and redirect (keeping the categories) to Mercedes Lackey bibliography#The Dragon Jousters as ((R to section)). Narky Blert (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following pages relating to members of the tetralogy, with the same recommendation, for the reasons given above:

Joust (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alta (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Signed) Narky Blert (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agree with assessment and redirects for the reasons stated above. Auldhouse (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does this warrant discussion? Be bold and redirect (as you recommend) before coming to AfD. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 21:20, 29 July 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 nomination withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RCS La Chapelle[edit]

RCS La Chapelle (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)

Unsourced(also on frwiki) football club which fails WP:NCLUB. withdrawn » Shadowowl | talk 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Having played in the national cup, clearly satisfies WP:FOOTYN. gidonb (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NFOOTY as has played in the national cup. SportingFlyer talk 05:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NFOOTY.They have played in the Coupe de France.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an amateur football club which has reached the 7th and 8th rounds of the Coupe de France (where fully-pro clubs enter the competition) in recent years. Added source to verify. Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 30 July 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waffenamt codes[edit]

Waffenamt codes (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)

Nazi fancruft marked as unsourced since 2013. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:V and WP:N. Merging to Waffenamt is inadvisable because the content is unsourced and of no discernible significance. Sandstein 19:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Namenamenamenamename (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per wP:GNG and WP:NOTIINFO. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails V/INDISCRIMINATE. Possible transwiki to Wikisource where this sort of content (though usually sourced?) belongs.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Waffenamt. We do not need two articles. This is something fairly specialised for collectors, but it is information that may not be readily available elsewhere, which may be useful to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Aid Organization[edit]

World Aid Organization (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 non profit organication. Googled both "World Aid Organization" and "Healthnovations International". Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is niether unique nor notable in any way. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no WP:ORGDEPTH. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Somwarpet. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeepany English Medium School[edit]

Sandeepany English Medium 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)

Orphan, per WP:DEL#8 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Name of this school is an issue, having come across multiple different names, such as Sandipany English Medium school and Sandeepani High School in different locations. After checking an archive of the only given citation in history, http://eproc.hpcl.co.in/Product/ReportAction?eventFlag=RegVendorPublic (archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20130103013850/http://eproc.hpcl.co.in/Product/ReportAction?eventFlag=RegVendorPublic), there is no mention of this school under this name. This citation only provides a list of enrolled vendors - a company short name, company name and address. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Somwarpet. I'm seeing multiple Sandeepany/Sandeepani/Sandi Pini schools that offer secondary education, and it is not clear which ones this one refers to. There's one called Sandeepani High School that occasionally has some outstanding student scoring on exams. [1] [2] and one for Sandeepani International School: [3] [4] Also Sandi Pini [5] With the school being private, it is even more confusing to verify. I did find this Datanet document that discusses a Sandeepany English Medium School [6] but again that's a passing mention. A more specific address would be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Brown[edit]

Phyllis Brown (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician. Quis separabit? 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per both consensus and author request. No point in keeping open longer. ansh666 18:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiksha Matabadul[edit]

Shiksha Matabadul (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:NMODEL.Only notable for one event. Created by a person who appeared to be affiliated with this pagents. Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NMODEL & WP:GNG; concur with @Akhiljaxxn. Quis separabit? 18:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NMODEL & WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim ibrahim[edit]

Ibrahim ibrahim (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)

Author of a number of fringe self-published books.[7], no discussion of him anywhere I can find. True he's used in another fringe book as a source[8] Books are either Kindle, Calendar Publications which is obviously his, or "MagnetElectro Publications" - MagnetElectro is the username of the editor who created the article. No evidence of notability WP:GNG or WP:PERSON. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should link his website.[9] Doug Weller talk 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also can't find any independent sources about this person, clearly not notable. It might even pass for A7 speedy. byteflush _Talk 19:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't even say in what unit the significant dimensional length of 33π in the structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza is supposed to be measured, it's ridiculous. Metres? Chains? Rods? Fathoms? Feet? Cubits? Verst? Old land-miles? Bishonen | talk 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It appears to be an early use of metres. Certes (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Certes, good catch. It sure is an early use. Maybe the ancient Egyptians were able to foresee the metre would be introduced round about the French Revolution. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete according to Policy. THX. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While I could verify that Ibrahim was mentioned in one cited source, it was an in-passing reference, in an in-universe source. Appears to fail WP:NBIO. —PaleoNeonate – 19:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: @Doug Weller: MagnetElectro, the creator of the article, has acknowledged being Ibrahim Ibrahim.[10] I only wish everybody was as honest. Time for snow close and/or speedy, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 20:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Slasher[edit]

Shadow Slasher (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)

According to Marvel Wikia this character only appears three times; does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of suitable notability even for a merge.--Killer Moff (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if you remove the article from Template:Shang-Chi, the only two incoming links are a DAB page and the proposed merge target. Nothing would be lost by deleting this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Argento. Our lists aren't supposed to be exhaustive. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shatterstar (Kree)[edit]

Shatterstar (Kree) (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 appear to meet WP:GNG. A Google search pulls up mostly results for the other Shatterstar character. In addition, the page is only linked to by seven articles, and the character appears a mere 12 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. MutchyMan112 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of suitable notability even for a merge.--Killer Moff (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's linked inline by three articles: Karnak (comics), Maximus (comics), and Triton (comics). All three say the same thing: "[the character] traveled to New York City, where he battled Kree agent Shatterstar." Nothing would be lost by deleting this article, nor by removing that line from the FCB of the articles linking to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Can barely find any information on the character, much less any meaningful information. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vincente Cimetta[edit]

Vincente Cimetta (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)

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Different versions of Cimetta listed on Marvel Wikia only appear ten times altogether. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: V. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of suitable notability even for a merge.--Killer Moff (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article claims the character "appeared primarily in the Generation X title", but Generation X (comics) doesn't even mention him. Nothing would be lost be deleting this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An insignificant character, and the character list articles we do have aren't meant to be exhaustive. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Ozdemir[edit]

Phillip Ozdemir (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)

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. While accomplished, searches do not turn up enough indepth sourcing from independent reliable references to show they meet WP notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. This is a horrific mess. Pardon the analogy, but it needs to be nuked. The subject might be notable for one book that got reviews, but the rest is so much mindless trivia and egotistical naval-gazing that the article needs to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Companions in the Bleak House[edit]

My Companions in the Bleak House (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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A bot-like nomination, made without due diligence. The subject has articles in other languages and it seems easy to find accolades ("stunning tour-de-force") and detailed coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Won the Tom Stoppard Prize[11][12], reviewed in the LA Times and The New York Times, discussed elsewhere in academic literature. Mortee (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out it was also adapted into a 4+1⁄2-hour miniseries that itself won awards. I've expanded the article significantly. Mortee (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mortee. Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for television, the award it won, and multiple periodical reviews. James500 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NBOOK seems comfortably satisfied between miniseries and significant news coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for lots of reasons as mentioned by others. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sedmikostelí[edit]

Sedmikostelí (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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep "Translated into eleven languages and a runaway bestseller in Spain". Yet another vexatious nomination, contrary to WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - notable book, see [13], [14] [15] or the list of reviews at the website of the distributor (Kosmas.cz) -all were published by notable literature critics/authors in notable media, please ask for detail if anyone has any doubts. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew Davidson and Vejvančický. James500 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect pending someone introducing some accurate, verifiable information that isn't already included in Miloš Urban. Having a one-sentence article that only duplicates a fraction of the relevant information in the main article is unhelpful. No comment on notability or potential to become more than a useless non-article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have expanded this article from the source provided by Andrew Davidson. To be honest I would have no problems with the article being merged into Miloš Urban for the time being, as they are both short articles. Urban is a pretty significant author in CR though, and there is no doubt a proper article could be written about him; I will try to get round to it at some point. At any rate, deletion nominations for books such as this by authors such as this without due process are fairly cynical, and I daresay there are better ways to approach it. Jdcooper (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana jesen[edit]

Rana jesen (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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we are not IMDb. Films do not get articles just because they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFILM as it was preserved by the Croatian national archive [16]. Daß Wölf 23:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Daß Wölf above. Bot-tooled created AfD with zero regard to WP:BEFORE. Nationally released film made by major production company (Jadran Film) in itself demonstrates passing WP:NFILM. --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eleventh Commandment (1970 film)[edit]

The Eleventh Commandment (1970 film) (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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [17]. Daß Wölf 02:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per [18], the film won the director a Golden Wreath for best debut at the 1970 Pula Film Festival, and there seems plenty of coverage in Google Books. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 29 July 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) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doći i ostati[edit]

Doći i ostati (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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [19]. Daß Wölf 02:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wolfy. Another bot-tooled AfD with zero regard to WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Some Swear Words[edit]

Love and Some Swear Words (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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a Google search for this article does not throw up many results that are actually about the film. The article itself is very brief, and does not supply much information other than this is a Croatian film. Vorbee (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFILM, restored and preserved in Croatian national archive [20]. Daß Wölf 23:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete – Unless the article has some significant addition to it, there is no reason at all to keep a one- or two-sentence article. Less than a stub, doesn't receive many page views. Redditaddict69 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wölf. Nationally released film by Croatia Film and was reviewed by the English language and American Daily Variety [21] demonstrates passing WP:NFILM not to mention directed by very notable director with just as notable actors. Being a stub is not a proper reason to delete. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. --Oakshade (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as being preserved in a national archive meets WP:NFO.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a close call, and in other circumstances I would have closed it as no consensus. However, we also have to consider WP:FRINGE, which directs us to require stronger sourcing on topics that deviate from the scholarly mainstream. Specifically, if an idea is widespread but questionable, we need out-of-bubble, critical sources to conform with WP:NPOV. With that in mind, I have weighted the argument that there is a lack of in-depth scholarly coverage over that of notability because it appears in a variety of less reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heretic's fork[edit]

Heretic's fork (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 likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the "Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Aside from secondary derivatives such as the Leon Golub artwork, the original device is described in a biography of Galileo [22], so the article is unlikely to be a hoax. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be the same instrument as the Spanish Inquisition's "pié de amigo", described in "A Short History of the Inquisition" and in a 2002 article in The Innes Review pages 9-10 (subscription reqd). AllyD (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very uncomfortable keep, or perhaps a merge/redirect to a list. No weight should be given to Reston's 1994 usage as it is fictionalised history. This is evidence for 1983 -- also as "forcella dell'eretico"", which predates Golub's 1985 work, but there seems to be no evidence online for anything earlier. "La horquilla del hereje" is a 1990 work by Roberto Márquez (painter) -- no prior use of that term found. Given it's use as an inspiration and other coverage, there's enough for some kind of retention (perhaps with careful selection of tone and attribution). Are there any RS casting which cast doubt on its actual existence/use, and that can be quoted? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The material listed by other contributors to this debate needs to be compiled into the article. Even if the 1983 and 1985 items were the equivalent of a HOAX, this seems to have taken on a life of its own. The article needs to be amended to imply that the subject is at best of dubious historicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Presumably AllyD and H₃O + OH^- haven't found any better sources than the ones they gave (if they had, why would they omit them?), and I'm not finding any evidence of reliability-and-usefulness for any of those sources. "this is evidence for 1983" is [23], which is a catalogue of the holdings of a museum: without plenty of details, we can't assume that the authors refer to the concept discussed in this article. The Beard Book publication was already debunked as untrustworthy. The other book is published by Edizioni Savine. I've logged into ProQuest Oasis (documentation) and searched for the publisher, and I can't find a single Edizioni Savine book in their offerings (even a publisher search for savine found nothing relevant). Oasis lists millions of new and old titles in print and e, and this publisher's complete absence from their listings (even print, which the First-sale doctrine allows ProQuest to sell without publisher permission) makes me guess that ProQuest does not believe that ES titles will be of interest to academic libraries. I'd need a good deal of convincing before I believed that such a publisher could be considered reliable. EUP journals are reliable, but we need a reliable source that connects the heretic's fork and the pié de amigo before we use an EUP journal talking only about the latter. PS, I've just checked Edizioni Savine in YBP Gobi (documentation), which I generally prefer over Oasis because of its search interface and (often) more comprehensive results, and it too returned 0 results. PPS, the Golub artwork is not a reliable source for the actual existence of such a torture device; it could have been his imagination. The photo is legitimate, but the hosting museum doesn't exist anymore; museums can be operated by individuals or small groups (see the final paragraph of David Yeiser House, for example), so without evidence that this was a solid professional museum, I'm highly reluctant to trust it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On the fence on this one. There looks to be several mentions of this in many publications over the years, but I've yet to find a single in-depth source. It's mentioned at List of methods of torture, but not such that it would make sense to merge as that list stands. Maybe good to turn that list into something a little more substantial that can support this sort of edge case... --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: As I said in my earlier comments, enough pre-Wikipedia usage can be found to challenge any idea of this having been placed as a WP:HOAX article. However, my searches in various places have failed to locate solid sources to provide positive support for an article about a C16-17 inquisitor’s object – and even when I was confident of finding such, I was still expecting to finish by recommending merger into a list of instruments, much as Rhododendrites suggests. Alternatively, following the suggestion by Hydronium Hydroxide and Peterkingiron, the article might cover the topic as a cultural idea, such as in the Golub artwork, but would I think need to avoid original research by citing a source which had already investigated the topic in those terms. All in all, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable with a "no consensus" outcome, but can’t make a strong positive argument for retention. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Faizabad[edit]

AIR Faizabad (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 pertains to the city-level affiliate of a wider radio channel, acting primarily as a translator station, and as such would lack notability according to WP:BROADCAST. A quick Google search does not point to notability on its own.  Shobhit102 | talk  03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Shobhit102 | talk  08:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Shobhit102 | talk  08:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A network affiliate broadcasts a mixture of network and local programming. Only if there is no locally-originated programming can it be dismissed as a translator. (For example, the morning show may be primarily local with some network programming for national news or a syndication tape with brief nationally-sourced features.) We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not voting at the moment, but trying to collect sources. The station is verifiable based on [24]. It is one of the 42 North regional service stations of AIR [25]. I am not sure whether it broadcasts local programming (such as local news). I do agree with Shobhit102 that there isn't much information available. If there isn't, one option could be redirect it to All_India_Radio#Regional_services.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or redirect. Broadcasting does not work in all countries the same way it works in Canada or the United States — in the vast majority of countries, radio and television networks do not have any such thing as local "affiliates" that originate any local programming separately from the parent network, but rather they operate exclusively as a single national service with a bunch of rebroadcasters that have no local programming variations. North American broadcasting is the exception, not the rule, to how broadcast networks operate in most countries. So the notability test is not passed just by saying the word "affiliate" — it's passed by showing reliable source evidence that the station actually originates some local programming. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. I'm not an expert in how to figure that out when it comes to India, but that's precisely why the claim has to be sourced, and not just asserted as possible, before it actually becomes valid grounds for an article about a radio transmitter — we've had lots of articles attempted about radio "stations" that don't meet that criteria, but actually exist solely as rebroadcasters of other services or networks, so proof that a radio station actually passes that condition has to be shown and not just presumed. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Will be expanding on Bearian's comment(s) as to the Indian scape shortly:)∯WBG^converse 13:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nongcun Guangbo[edit]

Nongcun Guangbo (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 source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BROADCAST, and possibly rename. If I read it correctly, Nongcun Guangbo means "rural broadcast", a general name that may not be the actual name of the radio station. Sources appear to be use Heilongjiang Country Broadcast or Heilongjiang Rural Radio depending on how you translate 黑龙江乡村广播 - [26][27], or Long Guang Country Station 龙广乡村台 [28] (this appears to be the official site, but needs checking as the article says 1020 AM while sources say 945 AM). Hzh (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave links above that show that the station satisfy the conditions you mentioned, perhaps you should check those first? Hzh (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources. They all represent the self-published content of the station and the company that owns it, and none of them represent independent coverage about it in sources independent of it. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many sources that mention various aspects of the station - e.g.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] I'm not sure what there is to question about the station. Hzh (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every web page that exists with a radio station's name in it is not automatically a reliable or notability-supporting source. Almost every single one of those links is some form of primary sourcing, such as blogs, press releases from the company itself and/or organizations that it's directly affiliated with, or social networking platforms — which are types of sources that do not count as support for notability. Exactly zero of them represent the kind of reliable sourcing that is valid support for notability. Literally the only one that looks like it might be a real reliable source completely fails to mention this station at all — it's just very general coverage of a company which I'm presuming owns this station if you're adding it here, but neither it nor this article actually says that company owns this station at all. You're not showing the kind of solid sources that it takes to make a radio station notable — you're showing the kind of weak sources, mostly its own self-created content about itself, that don't make a radio station notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket dismissal of such diverse sources is pointless because it is not clear on what basis you are dismissing them. The first one for example looks at the station in quite a bit of detail, and I haven't a clue as to why you dismiss it. Cumulatively they do suggest that the station is significant. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dismiss the first source because it's not a reliable source media outlet; it's a press release distribution and advertising platform on which companies can and do freely redistribute their own self-written information about themselves. Unreliable and self-created sources cannot add up to "cumulative notability"; only reliable sources can do that. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you offered no evidence that it's press release, nor for any of the others. Hzh (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here's more [40][41][42][43] Hzh (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person can plainly verify that it's a press release, and not real journalism in a real media outlet, just by (a) looking at it, and (b) reading our article about the website it's on. I don't need to "prove" anything that's already self-evident. And these four new sources — three glancing namechecks of its existence in books that aren't about it and one academic dissertation about the general phenomenon of rural broadcasting in which this radio station's name fails to appear at all — are not notability boosters either. You're failing to understand the very real distinction between a source that is reliable and notability-building, and a source which is not — "reliable sourcing" is not the same thing as "any web page that exists at all". Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jude the Entropic Man[edit]

Jude the Entropic Man (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 comics character. No in-depth coverage and only minor in-universe appearances. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J Dream Focus 19:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this minor character isn't worth including on the list. He's linked from about a dozen non-list articles that provide enough context without the need for an entry at the proposed target. Nothing would be lost by deleting this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a straightforward fail of GNG - only secondary source provided isn't reliable, and a Google reveals nothing better. Any merge would be required to remove 99% of the info and ultimately be toothless, or inviting to host this entire article on a list page. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above commentary as I also do not see the value in a merge. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. Opinion is split between merge and delete, but with a consensus not to keep. So either somebody does the merger, or if this doesn't happen or the content doesn't stick, anybody can RfD the redirect. Sandstein 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged Bow[edit]

Jagged Bow (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 comics character with only three or four appearances over 25+ years. Could merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J but am leaning towards deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - there doesn't seem any reason not to have him in the list, but the individual article fails to meet notability, as far as i can tell Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's a great reason not to have him on the list. That list was never intended to be all-inclusive for characters appearing in Marvel Comics - it's purpose is to serve as a central location for non-independently notable characters to avoid multiple articles from having to explain them. This guy is a Hawkeye-based mercenary. This one is linked by four non-list articles. Nothing would be lost by deleting this content. Argento Surfer (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your "location for non-independently notable characters" holds up - the majority of characters on the list are independently notable. That aside (since it is only tangentially relevant), while you're right in the sense no content will be lost (if properly included), so a merge isn't necessary, its presence in other articles doesn't seem to waive the benefit and argument for merging it with the list, which acts as an excellent co-ordinating location for characters both elsewhere and not. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How far did you scroll down the list before coming to the conclusion that most are independently notable? I'd say at least a quarter of the entries on these lists are the results of merges over the last 5 years precisely because they're not notable outside the fiction. This is better suited for the Marvel Wikia. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used 4 spot check pages, usually viewed as a good amount on an alphabetical list. Obviously the odds could be against me in this specific case Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The upper entries on the J list are more notable than the average. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: if the character is not covered in any or very few third-party, reliable sources, then I am not sure about the value of a merge as all of the information that would be added to the list would be in-universe. I agree with Argento Surfer, though I am open to changing my vote if someone provides links to third-party, reliable sources. I tried looking, but I could not find anything. I could be missing the obvious though as my Google game is not that great right (just having Wikipedia fatigue at the moment). Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A Google search doesn't turn up anything that would support notability, and (at least according to Marvel Wikia) the character only appears five times. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I'm not seeing enough in depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, to meet the notability guidelines. However, the content has value and I don't see any good reason why the information shouldn't be included in the List of Marvel Comics characters: J article, so that seems like the best option to me.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: What value does the content have? The character appears five times across Marvel continuity and has a minimal number of incoming links. As others have noted, the lists are not intended to be exhaustive and nothing of importance would be lost by deleting this article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, my reasoning is pretty much as simple as what BOZ said. The subject is not notable enough to have its own article, but we have an article right here containing a list of these characters. So instead of deleting the content completely, it makes perfect sense for the information in this article to be merged into the list of characters. Also, I'm not finding many of the arguments as to why we should remove the content completely convincing - I'm still not seeing what the problem would be if we merge the content, rather than have it outright deleted.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Argento Surfer will be able to put it more eloquently than I will, but from my end I'm in favor of deleting extremely minor characters like this one because of WP:IINFO and WP:MILL. The lists of characters aren't supposed to be wholly exhaustive (that's what fanwikis are for), and not every comic character needs inclusion on a list. There seems to be a recent push towards deletionism from within WP:COMICS and honestly, I'm fine with that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I will say, is that I don't think all the information that's currently listed on the page necessarily needs to be merged. It might be best to summarize it into a short paragraph and just add that to the List of Marvel Comics characters: J page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's the reason I have made the same argument on several other AFDs all currently going on; there is room enough for at least a handful of sentences for these characters, so we do not need to remove all information about them. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ansh666 20:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close addendum: there was a comment added between the time that I opened the AfD page and closing that I didn't see. While the NC close stands, I'd say it leans closer to consensus that GNG is met, though not all the way there. ansh666 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Trauner[edit]

Gary Trauner (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of tiself, and the expected level of campaign coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: campaign coverage always exists for all candidates, so a candidate only clears the bar if the sourcing demonstrates him as a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what the sourcing does here, and he has no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There's quite a few references here, this isn't this guy's first political rodeo, seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Active candidates and local politicians are not inherently notable, but such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" per WP:POLITICIAN. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it doesn't matter if it's his first rodeo or his tenth — it matters whether he won a rodeo or not. Every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage — if all a candidate had to show to be deemed notable was that some campaign coverage existed, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate. To be deemed as passing GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, a candidate does not just have to show a handful of campaign coverage — he has to be able to show that his campaign coverage exploded so far beyond what every other candidate could also show that he's got a credible claim to being a special case. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the rest of the community says; there's a reason why I voted "weak." PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial candidates can be notable, even though by definition they do not win. I haven't yet made up my mind about this candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a lot more than just WP:ROUTINE local coverage to make a perennial candidate notable. Lyndon LaRouche, sure. John Turmel, yeah. But not every single person who can simply claim to be a perennial candidate. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any independent notability other than his candidacy from the references in the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is always coverage of a candidate for public office. That alone is not a sign of notability. We have deliberately decided that every candidate for the US congress is not notable. Nothing short of every candidate for US congress being notable would make Trauner notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Gary Trauner is well known in Wyoming and national political circles, and nearly won election to the U.S. House by less than a percentage point in what was nearly a major D upset, even in 2006. He's still a prominent figure in the DC state and Wyoming politics. Scanlan (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes a person got in the process of not winning the election is not a notability claim in and of itself. Either he wins the election or the election is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. And just asserting that somebody is well known in national politics isn't a freebie that exempts you from having to show and source the fact as true — but none of the sourcing or substance here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - he's becoming close to a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a perennial candidate is not an automatic notability freebie either, in the absence of much more than just local attention. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has met GNG through independent media coverage, and this article has 26 citations. There is enough info for this to be considered a full article, and not a stub.Narayansg (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to recount those citations with an eye to the fact that some of them are primary sources that can't assist notability, and virtually all of the rest are the WP:ROUTINE local coverage that every candidate in every election could always show. Nothing in the range or volume of sourcing makes him special at all — every candidate everywhere could always show every bit as much sourcing as this. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The difficulty with perennial candidates (or near perennial candidates) is that there is not a great place to redirect the article to. Our usual outcome for members running for Congress is a redirect to the appropriate election page - in this case, there are three possible redirect targets. --Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2018. He is not known outside of the Wyoming region / Not a national figure. Redditaddict69 (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

• Keep Based on the content of the article and references, Trauner passes WP:GNG - there's a range of substantial coverage in reliable sources over several years, and he has held elected positions in a school district and water and sewer district (this article confirms that those are elected positions). This is more than just routine coverage of a candidate for a particular race. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Probably fails NPOL and is a perennial candidate, so nowhere really to redirect to. However, I think I am seeing just enough in the way of sourcing for GNG to be met, albeit barely. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that sourcing is inadequate, plus WP:CRYSTAL concerns. ansh666 20:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KC International Airlines[edit]

KC International Airlines (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. The only sources look like press releases. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a real airline with a real aircraft (MSN 2529) and launching operations. Nominator tagged this for CSD citing "it was deleted earlier" (here). Yes it was deleted but due copyvio and not GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if it has a real Aircraft, what matters is coverage. And it has none.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the coverage: CAPA, Alternative airlines, Routes online, ATW online, CH-Aviation, Plane soptters, World Airline News, Business traveler, National Multi Media, Khmer Times, Phnom Penh Post....etc. A simple google search reveals what the coverage is. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So A lot of trivial mentions, some demonstrating just why crystal is so important (a launch date of March, or was it January). So they have put back their launch date at least twice now. When they actually start flying the article could be recreated, at this time there is no guarantee of what their routs will even be.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nominator assumed that he sources cited are press releases. What he failed to realize is that none of the sources cited are press releases. CAPA is an independent organization and so is plane spotters. This is a lazy nomination and the nominator deserves a trout since his CSD was based on assumption that article was previously deleted and then he assumed that sources are press releases. Nominator should refrain from nominating articles from AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that they are not in depth coverage, they are the kind of materiel that companies write about themselves and give out. Almost all of the mentions are trivial (with the other one disusing the arrival of their first aircraft), and little more then "We exist" (you will note I did not say they were press releases, I said they look like them). So a few trivial mentions (amounting to they exist) and a newspaper report about them reciving one aircraft (in my opinion) notability does not make.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters is not considered reliable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Seems like a bit of WP:CRYSTALBALLing to me. The airline has not flown any flights and is due to launch in August. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And from one of the sources "KC International Airlines once again filed service revision for its planned inaugural", then yes Crystalballing is an issue here. Hell they cannot even say when in August they intend to start flying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [44] is not a press release. ([45] is a press release.) Commercial airlines are always notable; this isn't operating yet but there seems to be enough coverage to keep, even without using the crystal ball to see if they start operating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is almost no coverage of the airline, other than the news that they have bought an Airbus A320 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment commercial airlines are not "always notable"; as has been determined many times in other AfD discussions, airlines must satisfy WP:CORP just like any other companies. Having said that, I am reserving judgement at this time. YSSYguy (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep THere's plenty of coverage as mentioned above.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well 2 days untill their inaugural flight, any news?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None that I could find. The only news I found is the airline receiving their first plane. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And no others, it is really logical to say an airline with one plane is going to be able to run a scheduled service?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a very shiny plane 😉

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/67618-cambodias-kc-intl-airlines-secures-52mn-in-funding --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I did find this: https://www.pilotcareercentre.com/Air-Carrier-PCC-Profile/4071/KC-International-Airlines --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it is not even (At this time) licensed to operate aircraft.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "The company is presently undergoing AOC Certification with an intended revenue services starting in early 2018 with planning for up to 25 aircraft in the next five years." And it's already mid 2018. Though it was last updated June 20, 2018. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have thought if they had been accredited they would have said so, so the latest information is they are still not certificated to operate as a commercial airline. Thus this must fail Crystal ball.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how could they have bought a plane without licensing? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same way that Jeremy Clarkson did, I am not sure you need one to own a plane, just to operate it for commercial purposes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Globally, an AOC is required (or a NOC in case of new applications) before importing an aircraft. The aircraft are endorsed on the AOC and without an AOC / NOC (a.k.a license), there is no way an operator can import an aircraft and register it in the country. Lastly, KC does not own the aircraft and have merely leased the aircraft (dry lease) from Minsheng Financial Leasing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So how is KC flying without a license? Or is that article out of date? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think KC is flying now; destinations in the article specify the dates. I only commented on the process for importing an aircraft. It is strange, but two days to "launch" and I don't see their website also. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I did find https://www.alternativeairlines.com/kc-international-airlines and https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/.

  These are their routes, apparently https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/277539/kc-international-airlines-outlines-preliminary-launch-in-s18/ --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 06:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Also found these https://www.wego.com.sg/airlines/kc-international-airlines-co-ltd-3q https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2017/10/16/cambodia-prepares-welcome-five-new-airlines/ --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 06:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 08:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More questions, who runs it, who are its CEO or (and) MD (odd we have some lower staff listed, but not who actually heads it)? What time do the flights depart and arrive? How much do they cost? This is all basic information we should have about this airline. Yet we have none of this, despite the "in depth" coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• These are their new routes schedule https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/279616/kc-international-airlines-revises-initial-launch-in-s18/
• https://bongthom.com/job_detail/view-70762.html
• Also found these
• https://mobile.twitter.com/ambrose_xu/status/1004972286737174528
• https://mobile.twitter.com/Jesper86908642/status/989435731176079360
• http://www.sectorpublishingintelligence.co.uk/news/1906799/kc+international+airlines+selects+airrm+as+its+revenue+management+system --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This is their Twitter with no tweets https://mobile.twitter.com/AirlinesKc/with_replies --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above raises more questions then answers, does it have an official website or Facebook page? How many staff does it have? An airline about to lunch in a day or so, and not one live update as to status or seat availability? Is it even still going?Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/ seem their Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/photos/a.726576217537052.1073741829.683705931824081/841613212700018/?type=3

https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/photos/a.726576217537052.1073741829.683705931824081/849890125205660/?type=3 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing since the middle (being generous) of July.

Ohh and http://kcairlines.com, ohh dear just how much more do we need to say "this is not even up and running yet".Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have received confirmation that User:Sonampha belongs to the company and thus contravenes paid editing. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So this is now crystal balling of the first order, it is a prime example (one might argue a illustrative model). The website is still not up, no service updates (or indeed any updates) for weeks (and on the day as their inaugural flight, and not even any news about why they have not actually lifted off).Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I found this article https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/69431-cambodias-kc-air-set-to-secure-aoc-preps-for-launch but I can't read the content because it's behind a paywall. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I found a picture on their wall of a KC plane at an airport https://www.facebook.com/KCAIRLINES/posts/825451427649530
  So they might be flying but have no coverage. So while they might be operational they may fail notability guidelines. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on their PM, it seems they have yet again changed their schedule: "Besides, our schedule has been changed due to some reasons and we will launch our news soon." So it seems to be a major case of WP:CRYSTALBALLing. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not yet notable. Our previous practice with airlines is they need to actually begin scheduled flights. It seems a rational distinction. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage looks routine to me, and airline doesn't satisfy CORP Enterprisey (talk!) 20:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh nice to see you in AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Few reliable secondary sources, with most coverage being run of the mill and simple statistical information useful for little more than verifying that this exists, as well as WP:CRYSTALBALL. Additionally, their website is still under construction, their Facebook has little useful information, and their Twitter is deleted, despite claims that they should have started service several times by now (with continual delays). All this confusion makes it very hard to verify anything.LittlePuppers (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / update. The airline in discussion got it's AOC yesterday (as per Flight Global). This is just to update everyone so that they can decide accordingly. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd as their website is still not operational, or do they have another?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comment above Redditaddict69 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't seem mergeable. ansh666 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina dromaeosaurid[edit]

North Carolina dromaeosaurid (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)

Unnamed, only roughly classified, singular fragmentary fossil (a single tooth) that does not merit an article. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington theropod - exactly the same issue.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• i think it should stay till named. It looks intresting enough to talk about it especily at they Hype of JWFK people will want to know more about dinosaurus so yeah.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for subject being non encyclopaedic (yet). The text is mostly about the dental record. Ouch. -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the same basis as Washington State Theropod, fragmentary pieces of bone not yet referred to any animal nor used to erect a new taxa should not get their own article. By that logic we should have millions of these articles, with another one being created each time a palaeontologist finds a fossil and describes it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reference in Cretaceous Research is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's certainly a solidification of verifiability, but just being the subject of a scientific palaeontology paper doesn't establish notability. Just looking at this month I would imagine this would mean that these perinatal hadrosaurs [46], this large pterosaur [47], and these large theropod tracks [48] should all also have stub articles. None of them are Cretaceous Research of course, but they're all published papers, which seems to be what you're going off of. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Primary scientific research reports of fossils are WP:MILL. Somebody else in the field (or the media) needs to care. For that matter, it hasn't even been formally published in Cretaceous Research yet - the citation is to a pre-publication release to subscribers. Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. By the logic of the creator any single fragment of a fossil that has any sort of unique fact about it should get an article with a single sentence (see the examples in my reply above). That's unsustainable and doesn't help anybody. This one doesn't even have the argument of an awkward merge like the Washington State theropod does, it's a very simple incorporation into the Dromaeosauridae article just like the deleted Australia spinosaur article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at a minimum this is WP:TOOSOON. The paper reporting it hasn't even been formally published yet. A sizable number of scientific papers either are completely ignored by their field, or are deemed to be flawed and are never accepted. Initial publication of a finding is no indication that it is authentic and noteworthy. A good rule of thumb for scientific findings is that a research paper needs to be formally published, then it has to be accepted as noteworthy and likely accurate (or at least possible) by the rest of the field, as evinced by summary and citation in reviews or the introductions of later papers written by a researcher independent of the author to indicate a finding is notable. Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - until this fossil is assigned a name, or, at the very least, until the paper that found the tooth is released, this article should not be on Wikipedia. While there is information that could render this more than a stub (ie the fact that it fills a gap in the taxonomy of Dromaeosauridae), the paper hasn't actually been published yet. Until it is (or, preferably, until the specimen is actually assigned a name), then the findings aren't exactly very reliable. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, after the paper is actually published, I'm also fine with adding it to the Dromaeosauridae article, since it can add useful information to its taxonomy. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. We do not create organism articles based on a single find that has been analyzed in-depth in a secondary manner.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into dromaeosaur. We have had discussions about such unnamed animals, and agreed they should be treated at the article of the family level. No reason to have articles like this, and we should probably make some clear guidelines at the dinosaur project. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As of now, neither source for the article hasbeen formally published, so neither is a WP:RS. That makes none of it WP:V, so there is thus nothing to merge. This will change when the article is formally published, but what, if anything, to mention on the dromaeosaur page can be discussed at that time through the normal editing process. Agricolae (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with dromaeosauridae. It seems unlikely that some would want specific details on the North Carolina version of this dinosaur. Vorbee (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what? - what in that article is WP:V? Agricolae (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. There's nothing to merge as of now, and this isn't a likely redirect term either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping on this as well. It's not even well written, we'd have to re-do the whole coverage of the subject anyways. When it's validly published it can be put on the page Appalachia (Mesozoic), written from scratch. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:15, 30 July 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. ansh666 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Astaneh[edit]

Behrooz Astaneh (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 Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies of living persons Rahiminejad (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACADEMIC and WP:JOURNALIST. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The one source present is not even indepdent of Astaneh, so we have a total and complete failure of the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly does not pass GNG. I don't see how he passes WP:PROF. h-index of 9 per google scholar. Academic position (and journal editor) doesn't seem to qualify.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. One of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC is being editor of an important academic journal. Behrooz Astaneh appears to be notable as the editor of Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences. He is also a visiting editor of the British Medical Journal according to https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: that's editor-in-chief, not editor. And the Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences seems to be a far cry from a notable journal, it's not even in MEDLINE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per above Weak keep, per Randykitty. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences is indeed not a major journal, but I just went through the article and it does meet NJounrals because of its inclusion in Scopus. The latter database also gives a "CiteScore", roughly equivalent fo an impact factor, of almost 1, which is not bad for a general medical journal published in a non-Western country. According to their website, Astaneh is one of 2 chief editors, which would appear to satisfy NACADEMIC#8. I make this a "weak" keep, as there is not much more to be found on this person. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PS The fact that this journal is not in MEDLINE, noted by Headbomb above, is perhaps related to the US sanctions against Iran, as I remember reading that some Iranian authors could not publish in US-based journals because of them. The journal is in PMC, but may have gotten in there when the sanctions were lifted, as PMC works a bit faster, I think, than MEDLINE. This is just speculations, of course, as I have no sources for this. --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Am not seeing a lot online for uses of his name (بهروز آستانه). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per arguments made by Headbomb. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article was bad writing!! please fix it! Emily Khine (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:JOURNALIST. He is only a Co or Joint editor in chief along with Hamid Reza Pakshir and Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences is not a major, well-established academic journal in their subject and the subject has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject and hence does not NACADEMIC#8 .Further could not find anything on the subject to write a separate biographical article and it is already mentioned in the journal page about the subject and most sources are primary.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. I find the argument that this is a populated place and therefore meets GEOLAND to be particularly twisted. And regardless of ROADOUTCOMES, in the end an article needs to meet GNG and there is consensus that this one doesn't. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster North services[edit]

Doncaster North services (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 evidence of notability, and I'm not sure that service stations are notable enough to have articles. If it is important it could be mentioned in the article about the motorways it is next to. If this article is deleted then some of the articles for the other service stations in the UK should be PRODed. Jc86035 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the one US case where there are links at all to rest areas, they all point to one section of the New Jersey Turnpike article which lists them. I think that's only because they have names. Honestly I'm having a hard time seeing the notability of rest areas but I'm sure I'm about to be instructed otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to go with delete as none of the arguments I'm seeing in favor of keeping are better than "is too!" Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG. This is hardly a major shopping complex, it's a service station with a few shops attached. Ajf773 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - UK service stations require acts of parliament, often with their own postcode and are significant waypoints on the road network, most serve significantly more people daily than half the railway stations which have articles here. Comparisons to US rest areas are invalid as they are completely different. Historically service station deletions close as keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination) and Strensham services as an example of when a services article can be taken to Good Article status.Jeni ^(talk) 13:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jeni: I don't usually edit in this topic area or at AfD, but do you have sources which relate to this particular service station? Jc86035 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rest stops in the US range from mere parking areas (though generally with some sort of rest rooms) to the complexes found along I-95 and the NJ Turnpike. The latter match the description of the British facilities, but while one can perhaps find some routine news briefs about them, they are, when all is said and done, just rest areas, and the description of these says the same. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• These service areas are not much different than small shopping centres, which we already have a whole deletion sorting category for. Most shopping centres in the UK have their own postcodes, that doesn't make them notable however. Furthermore, majority of these services articles contain little more than travel guide content, including websites to hotels and other businesses in the area. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Would prefer if these were merged into one huge article but as one doesnt exist I guess the only option is deletion, Anyway fials NOTDIR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, and there's not enough to merge. Best thing to do would be a list on the motorway page, perhaps with date of opening. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See WP:ROADOUTCOMES, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). This issue has been discussed extensively in the past and has been decided to keep all British motorway service areas. They are established by statute and are major complexes. They are not just "truck stops". It is not productive to delete a single example, when there are articles for all of them. See Category:Motorway service areas (United Kingdom). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Necrothesp: We can't draw conclusions from those AFDs, which were flawed to begin with. The nominators wanted to delete all of the articles at once, even though some of the service stations are clearly notable, so it's not really surprising that they were both closed with a consensus to keep all the articles. That has nothing to do with whether this particular article passes the GNG. Jc86035 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. The argument is that all British motorway service stations are notable. Good reasons have been given on those AfDs and those reasons have not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to rely on flawed AfDs from almost a decade ago, as notability guidelines have changed. Also, the discussion wasn't extensive - it hasn't really been addressed from ten years ago, when notability guidelines were a bit different. The ROADOUTCOMES blurb was added by someone who contributed to one of those AfDs, and it's completely unclear to me why a UK service station would be presumptively notable, but a Croatia service station wouldn't be - especially where the UK service station fails WP:GNG like this one does. SportingFlyer talk 05:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ROADOUTCOMES is an essay, not policy. We should not automatically assume that because something is "generally notable" in an essay topic that it is inherently notable in Wikipedia policy. Who also made the decision that service areas in Britain (but no other country) were generally notable? If it was on the basis of an outcome of a mass AfD (which was always going to end up as a trainwreck) then the fallback should consider reliable sources if there are any. Shopping centres covering a larger area and a greater number of facilities aren't always notable and I don't see why smaller services areas should have a higher status. Ajf773 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]