< 28 June	30 June >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hussain Farooqui[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all I find are passing mentions and self-published works. Most of the content is effectively unsourced or WP:PRIMARY. Kleuske (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not very many Manchester Muslim religious figures have an academic journal article about them, a broadsheet source and a council-political page, these should be enough for notability, its simply bringing what is in the domain together

The broadsheet sources is a passing mention and none of the other sources meet WP:NOTABILITY: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Kleuske (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One I.B Tauris academic chapter in a book is definitely independent and should be enough in itself.

Please use either the sign button or four ~ to sign your posts so people know who said what. Thank you, ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article tries to make Farooqui more prominent than he is. Having a member of a city council in your congregation is not a default sign of notability. If it were, we could propel thousands of more people to notability, especially if we applied this rule in a non-presentist fashion. The gaurdian article makes only passing mention of Farooqui. The claims about the significance and impact of academic coverage do not seem to take into account the actual level of this coverage in relation to others. As written the article currently is a major violation of BLP polices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much here beyond being arrested and released (no charge) in 2009. A few bits and ends in a BEFORE - but not rising to GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - non notable, doesn't meet criteria. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about reverting to a simple article on the khanqah naqshbandia building, the former warehouse referred to?
Speedy Delete per John Pack Lambert Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Various CCS', so not a speedy delete, but not sufficient coverage to build a BLP and pass BASIC/GNG. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 10:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-speedy delete is fine too, but there was a major BLP violation that I removed. (Something that shouldn't be repeated as it proved to be an unsubstantiated allegation that wasn't even verified by the cited source). It doesn't seem like he is otherwise notable so I still support deletion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that one source doesn't make it up. Fails GNG. Dial911 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:09, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 NFL replacement officials[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note, the prior 2012 AfD was resolved as no consensus.

For related content, we have 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute with links to both:

2012 NFL referee lockout
List of 2012 NFL replacement officials

General context: In 2012 The NFL hired replacement referees and this List article identifies a subset of them. These replacement referees officiated the first 3 weeks of the seasons. The NFL has ~7 referees/game * 16 games/week = ~100 referees involved. The List article currently names about 20 of the ~100 referees, none with stand-alone articles. I previously removed unsourced referee names from the List article. The context of the lockout and the pool of available referees implies that most of the ~100 will never be WP:GNG in my view.

The List article was spun out of the Lockout article in Sept 2012 per the article History. At this point, the LEDE of the List article seems fully redundant to the stand-alone article. So the only distinct content is the 20 referee names.

So what if anything should be done with the incomplete List of 2012 NFL replacement officials?

Merge the cited referee names back into 2012 NFL referee lockout, redirect this article to that article section
Redirect this article and do not merge names (WP:NOTESAL, WP:SALAT)
Leave as-is

My view is merge due to the small amount of distinct article content (20 names) and clear overlap with original "donor" article. Thanks, UW Dawgs (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lockout is significant, but the individual replacement refs aren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clarityfiend Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game officials at any level rarely generate enough press to pass WP:GNG and normally officials are not considered notable (with some exceptions, of course). I see no reason to have a list of non-notable officials.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clarityfiend - as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the names are links to Wikipedia articles, and several of the short bios seem designed to embarrass NFL and "replacement officials" as a whole (Brian Stropolo – Before the Week 2 game between the New Orleans Saints and Carolina Panthers, Stropolo was removed from his role for the game after it was revealed that he was a Saints fan. None of this needs to be merged to 2012 NFL referee lockout. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a collection of some non-notable names that would remain unnoticed in all likelihood. Dial911 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:10, 6 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 Sarah Strohmeyer#Bubbles Yablonsky Series. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles Yablonsky[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. I do not believe there is enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support this character having a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Sarah Strohmeyer#Bubbles Yablonsky Series as the search term is plausible, but there's so sign that I can see of the character's or series's independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with Mangoe. Fails GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since this character could be redirected and merged to Sarah Strohmeyer#Bubbles Yablonsky Series, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I understand a redirect, but I do not think there is anything that should kept with a merge as none of the information is sourced by a third-party, reliable source. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus into a standalone article about the series, rather than the character. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: As long as you can prove that the series itself is notable enough through citing articles that cover it, then I think that this can be viable option. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Strohmeyer#Bubbles Yablonsky Series. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:11, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Sankeerth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Also fails WP:GNG, with references providing trivial coverage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria of WP:NBADMINTON
1) Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships, - Sankeerth has not competed at either event.
2) Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles competitions. Has not competed in a continental championships, super series or a major international multi-sport event.
3) Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International). Athlete has won medals at events hosted in the United States, however the event in question (U.S. International) is not the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a the United States Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4) Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix. Has not won a medal at any event listed at BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix page.
5) Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics. Has not won a national championships (Canadian championships). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet #3 and #4 WP:NBADMINTON. He was the bronze medalist at the 2016 Brazil Open. #3 Brazil Open was the highest international singles/doubles championships in Brazil in 2016. #4 Brazil Open was the BWF sanctioned Grand Prix tournament.Stvbastian (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazil Open was definitely not the highest international tournament held in Brazil in 2016. That would be the 2016 Brazil Open Grand Prix. If they are the same event (which they might be due to the similar names), Sankeerth did not medal at the event. Ergo because he did not medal there it would also make #4 moot. @Stvbastian Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i mean the 2016 Brazil Open Grand Prix. You can check it again in the men's doubles section. He was third in that tournament.Stvbastian (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GOLDENRULE. Notable person, Accesscrawl (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please enlighten this discussion with independent, significant coverage of the subject? @Accesscrawl Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won a medal in the doubles competition at the Brazil Open Grand Prix, which appears to be the same tournament as the Brazil Open. Sportsfan 1234 is correct that he did not win a medal in the singles competition. Nonetheless, that's enough. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBADMINTON by virtue of his doubles placement in both the 2016 and 2018 Brazil Opens.Jacona (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NBADMINTON due to competition in a major tournament. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable badminton player. If a reliable source like The Hindu says he won two medals, means he won medals. We don't need to have elaborated coverage on that. Dial911 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBADMINTON. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:11, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Mielniczenko[edit]

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

Not independently notable of Hannah Hart. This young (28) director/actress/producer does have some coverage - e.g. around 20 news items - but most of them are passing and not in depth. Most of the sources presently in the article are not usable or are primary (e.g. imdb, linkein, instagram). Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the nomination. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete article has one possible RS, gaystarnews. seriously? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly enough RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:12, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Morris (missionary nurse)[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. A dedicated nurse. Can't find any info on her, and nothing in the article currently shows any indication of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 00:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I was able to confirm some of the information with this search, but her name is relatively common and I can't find anything in-depth about her. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, never said the article wasn't accurate. Simply not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some kind of glorafied obituary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are insufficient independent sources with significant discussion of this person. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I'd normally be inclined to keep nursing-related content, but this fails gng. Basie (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced to various PRIMARY documents and a document by cjmin - the organization she worked for in Japan. I haven't found much else in my BEFORE - but a more notable author with the same name clouds results.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:13, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Stubbs[edit]

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

Non-notable local April Fools Day hoax. RS coverage is insignificant, most other sources simply repeat the hoax. –dlthewave ☎ 20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not for trivia Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing demonstrates the sustained coverage needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough RS here to establish WP:not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source given. fails GNG. Dial911 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:14, 6 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 Irish American Football League. The sole Keep is unpersuasive. Probably notable and sources are likely don't work well in AfD. The remaining comments were divided on whether to simply delete or redirect. In such cases I almost always opt for redirection per ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UCD American Football[edit]

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

Previously PROD by me and refunded I see no improvement since then, an article about a university sports team showing no notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator very few sources lots of out of date info & no real indication of notability. Finnegas (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large article just needs sources. Probably notable, I would guess it sufficient gets coverage in the press. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish American Football League. A topic that doesn't have sources is generally not notable for a stand-alone article; if sources are found this can be re-created. It reads like a fanpage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 6 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: V. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 10:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victorius (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, not even as a section on a list of characters. According to Marvel Wikia the character only appears nine times, and appears to have no notable adaptions that would warrant keeping the page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 14 June 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) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't think the character is notable enough to merge. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the character is linked from 5 non-list pages, and those provide enough context that an article (or list entry) is not warranted. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list per BOZ. Besides the fact of existence, the article has no out-of-universe information. A standalone article is therefore inappropriate. SpinningSpark 21:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as second choice. No good reason to delete. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:19, 4 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) Sam Sailor 20:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where I Come From (Christy Moore album)[edit]

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

Delete. Issues aroundd WP:NN, essentially ((notability|music)), like the other articles listed below. All are bare listings without any indication of notability and all are the work of the same editor resembling a private collection rather than an encyclopaedic series. In some cases, there is a WP:V issue too.

I am nominating the following which are all related to the above:

Same rationale for deletion. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article creator is blocked and won't be —or at least shouldn't be— repairing deficiencies in the article any time soon. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and probably a speedy one: Provided that the artist is notable, albums which don't meet NALBUM are still valid targets and should be redirected to and covered at the artist; It's (now) linked from the DAB Where I Come From. Albums should only be a pure delete if neither the artist nor the album nor any of its songs are notable. Was WP:BEFORE performed? Notability is inherent and not based on the state of the article. I see sigcov from at least four different countries at the Irish Times, the Guardian, RTE, the ABC & No Depression, etc. As for the remainder they'd need a more careful and individual consideration of notability ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All and improve each through the normal editing process. Like the previous voter, I suspect that the nominator did not conduct a proper WP:BEFORE search for a single one of these albums individually, or collectively as a group nomination. The nominator also missed WP:NEXIST, which states that the current absence of sources in an article is not proof that sources do not exist at all, and that editors should search for them and add them going forward. The only album in this list that presents a bit of a problem is H Block for which I can find few reliable sources. Otherwise, every single other album in the list at least has an AllMusic review, with the exception of Lily (Christy Moore album), for which I was able to find several robust reviews in reliable and significant Irish/British magazines in mere seconds (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:NALBUM, these are little more than track listings. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST and the previous "keep" votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzat Kutebar: In some cases, there is a WP:V issue too. Where? Sam Sailor 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several have carried the ((refimprove)) template for a long time. Christy Moore (album) has only its own sleeve notes for verification – if that is acceptable, fine, but I'd have said it is a conflict of interest and a non-independent source. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A COI is something else, but yes, it is not an independent source, however I do not see that these "WP:V-issues" amount to a deletion rationale (policy: WP:DEL7) it is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Sam Sailor 09:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Christy Moore (album) does not only have the sleeve notes as source, there are two sources in the / External links / section. Such are called general references. It is a very common misunderstanding that references have to be inline citations to qualify. Sam Sailor 09:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although sleeve notes are primary (and thus do not provide evidence for or against notability), there's absolutely nothing at all wrong with using them for track information, etc, ref WP:PRIMARYCARE. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzat Kutebar: This is why WP:BEFORE is critical. With the total editor time that has been and will be spent on this (not only participants but also eyeball time of non-participants) you could have done a quick BEFORE and fixed up the article to the point at which it shows a level of notability. (Ok, you could have also applied WP:BURDEN/WP:BOLD instead and redirected with Rcats Template:R from album and Template:R with history, but that's far less good) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hydronium Hydroxide. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:15, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonoMetro[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, no indication that this company has progressed beyond the concept phase in 20+ years. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not, or certainly no longer, notable --papageno (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough RS doesn't meet WP:not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:16, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AMResorts[edit]

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

Advertising Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed® some pretty® horrid® advertising® to make the article at least look presentable for anyone judging it that way. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the parent article Apple Leisure Group has more content. I don't see any signs this subsidary is notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:16, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Hamid[edit]

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

Local municipal polititian with what appears to be only local covearge; fails WP:POLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. Many of the sources cited are the subject's own writings. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a town the size of Milton is not an WP:NPOL pass — serving on a municipal council only confers an automatic presumption of notability in global cities on the order of Toronto or Montreal, and not in any town or city outside that class — but the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to make him a special case over and above most other smalltown municipal councillors. Most of the sources here are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and/or primary sources that are doing absolutely nothing at all in terms of building notability — and the few references that are actually about him in any non-trivial way are strictly from Halton Region's local weekly pennysaver. This is not enough coverage to make a municipal councillor in a non-global city notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entire coverage is only some mention in large documents. Kraose (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:17, 6 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

African Jesuit AIDS Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the given sources are related (their own website) or just passing mention or mentions of the founder. No in-depth sources writing about the organisation. The Banner talk 17:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a book Linked for life : African Jesuit AIDS Network^[1] — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Linked for life : African Jesuit Aids Network. Vella, Danielle,, Czerny, Michael. Nairobi, Kenya: Paulines Publications Africa. 2007. ISBN 9966082395. OCLC 233634860.((cite book)): CS1 maint: others (link)

- True, with the founder of the organisation as co-author. The Banner talk 18:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mentioned book is not indepdent enough of the organization to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:17, 6 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. Early closure as consensus is rapidly forming in regards this subject. Alex Shih (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges Preparatory School[edit]

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

This prep school doesn't appear to have anything more than local coverage, which doesn't satisfy WP:CORP inclusion criteria (requiring national or at least regional coverage). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article fails to mention several facts that some editors may find relevant: that this is a relatively new public charter school that is still in the process of adding a grade per year: in 2017-18 they had 580 students, in 2018-19 they are offering K to 11, and they will be adding a senior class in 2019-2020. [4][5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's even more justification for deleting the article, in accordance with WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It currently offers Grade 10, which qualifies it as as high school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It currently offers Grade 10, which qualifies it as as high school, and will add further years - all the more reason for keeping it. And in any case, if it were not to be kept, according to policy it should be redirected not deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the Beganning of the 2018-19 Schools Year, It will offer Grade Eleven. Nolan Perry (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also add that it technically is run by the state of South Carolina and the South Carolina Public Charter School District, instead of the Beaufort County School District. Ergo, It has attained coverage at regional level . Nolan Perry (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Just Chilling (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improvement, but there is no doubt about its notability. Now as forever, high schools are most commonly judged for notability on a standard much closer to PLACE than ORG, and the biannual RfCs have never changed that. Notability is defined by the community, and actions speak louder than words. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: utterly non-notable stub, no significant content added since creation, consensus to delete including OP - The Anome (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autoclave-resistant factor[edit]

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

This seems to come from a single paper, which was then added to the NCI dictionary of terms. This is not notable. Natureium (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The paper gets a few citations and a one-sentence mention in this paper while discussing the oncological effects of soya. Doesn't seem to be enough notability for a standalone article, especially as their has been 25 years since the original paper for others to investigate. I feel it should be merged somewhere rather than deleted, but I don't have a target. SpinningSpark 10:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the article as a stub using material from the public domain Cancer Dictionary. Many of these stubs have since grown to be decent-quality articles, but this has not. On review, I don't believe this has reached the notability threshold required for it to be a stand-alone article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search does not show me enough notability to warrant a separate article. Not ready yet.-- Alexf^(talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OP says to delete - doesn't meet wp:not Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:23, 1 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. – Joe (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knights In Paris[edit]

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

The article just passed its eight-year anniversary and appears to have been changed from describing a band created in 2007 to one created in 2018. No website, but the change from a MySpace page in the old version to a Facebook page is indicative. Mike Glita is a notable band member, but the only meaningful source I found in a Google search was this one from 2007. The article is also poorly connected with the rest of the encyclopedia, with the only inbound links coming from the articles for Glita and Senses Fail. Simply put, the notability standard is not met. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND (only one notable member). Completely unsourced. Tera TIX 03:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:18, 6 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 snow delete. Comprehensive failure of WP:BIO with WP:BLP implications. Just Chilling (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amou Haji[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Guinness Book of World Records. An entry supported only by oddity sites or "news of the weird" does not meet the threshold of WP:notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think even the Guinness book would take this "fun" unverifiable fact. Natureium (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline speedy, but the newspaper mentions are some claim of significance at least. Not a claim to notability, though. --bonadea contributions talk 19:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for aimless trivia. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 21:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No where near passing our guidelines for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic attack page of the "Dirty Iranian" variety. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:24, 1 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 Wilmington, North Carolina#Middle schools. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friends School of Wilmington[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. No evidence of passing WP:NORG or other notability criteria. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wilmington, North Carolina#Middle schools where it is mentioned and where any sourced material that is subsequently found can be added. This is a straightforward WP:BEFORE situation. Just Chilling (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per policy to Wilmington, North Carolina#Middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is List of Friends schools. The problem with it listing in Wilmington, North Carolina#Middle schools is that it is listed twice: once under Middle schools, and once under Alternative schools. It's a K-8 school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wilmington, North Carolina#Middle schools. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:21, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LA Central I[edit]

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

Non-notable, potentially untrue as well. The only sources I can find online about these towers are from WP mirrors. If anyone can find any sources please add them. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (one could even argue speedily) as there is no mention on the main list article and would seem they may just be a total hoax. For articles 8 years old and still be in their current state, perhaps it needs to be asked how they have lasted so long! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is assertion of completion in 2010 implied in the infobox. 45 stories would make it around 10-15 in tallest LA buildings. Did this get renamed? Could it be part of the LA Live complex that was completed around 2010 and is included at that point in the list of tallest LA buildings. If so, this should simply be redirected. --Doncram (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:21, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josneidy Castillo[edit]

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

Sorry to waste everyone's time, but this is clearly a case of WP:BIO1E, but the article's creator sees it a bit differently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Under One Event. Only claim to Notability is their participation in one situation. And sorry to say, this same situation happens 1,000(s) of times a day. We are not a Newspaper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
Delete – A single act does not make one notable. Consider salting.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename, at the very least merge, as well as oppose to salting. – WP:BIO1E doesn't state that a subject is not notable for one event, it says that "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both" and the event per se does not have an article. The article was blanked and turned into a redirect to Marvinia Jiménez, another biography. WP:SINGLEEVENT also says that if an individual plays a major role in a minor event, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident.

@Shoessss: WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument that should be avoided in deletions. Subject meets WP:GNG, and references 3, 4, 5 and 9 are only about Josneidy. This incident isn't one among "1,000" that happen a day. What do you mean? In Venezuela or worldwide? The beating happened during a relevant episode in Venezuela, the 2014 protests, and is symbolic of their police brutality, the arbitrary detentions and their impunity. Marvinia and Josneidy are named in reports of NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and regional bodies such as the Organization of American States. These aren't just numbers among the, for example, 289 cases of torture reported, these are names and persons that have received significant coverage. Josneidy has also been covered in books such as Testimonios de la Represión by Carlos Javier Arencibia (ISBN 978-980-408-038-8) and La muerte tiene muchos rostros by Juan Carlos Sosa Azpúrua (ISBN 9789807329019). The article isn't only about the beating, it's about how Josneidy hasn't been arrested and has been promoted, and I should mention that the OAS report is not only about just human rights violations, but about a pattern that the panel found that constitutes crimes against humanity, reason why it was sent to the International Criminal Court.

Even though this isn't about notability, lastly I should note that the article was created as part of the Women in Red iniciative to reduce Wikipedia's gender gap, so the article shouldn't be hastily deleted. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BIO1E event and already covered in Marvinia Jiménez (on whom 1E might be called as well - but has a bit more coverage). I'll note that coverage of this event is lacking in 2014 Venezuelan protests though one might argue that this is UNDUE there (this was photographed - however 43 people we killed, 5285 injured, and 3689 arrested - so focusing on one arrest+beating might not be DUE).Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Icewhiz: Just for the record: Around three beatings during the protests were recorded on tape and are the most emblematic. The second one happened in San Cristóbal, while the third one in Caracas. The former two were shown in a video at the OAS by María Corina Machado back in 2014; Marvinia has also been interviewed several times, like shown in the video. Many of the 43 deaths were not caught on tape or got as much coverage, even less the thousands of injured, and the rest of the abuses are known because of testimonies, such as the torture during imprisonment. Given that this is possibly the only case of a beating in 2014 where both the officer and the victim are identified, I'm more inclined to ask for a rename or at least a redirect. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly see a redirect to Marvinia Jiménez - though you do have BLPCRIME concerns regarding Josneidy Castillo who has not been convicted of anything. I do think that the incident is already covered in Jiménez (otherwise - I would've swung merge more easily - as it is however we have two 1Eish individuals for the same event). There might be some scope for development of the filmed incidents on 2014 Venezuelan protests (or on a spinoff of Media portrayal of 2014 Venezuelan protests).Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading BLPCRIME, I thought that being charged with a crime was enough and that a conviction wasn't needed. I'll take care about it in the future. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:BIO1E; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:22, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Litovchenko[edit]

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

Lack of demonstrated notability - I can't find sufficient personal coverage. Provided references are risible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:23, 6 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. I came very close to closing this as a delete because frankly I found the arguments there to be more persuasive. However while some of the pro-keep comments were fairly light-weight, a couple posed a sufficiently rational case for keeping that I am not quite ready to pull the delete trigger here. As the discussion has already been relisted twice, I believe it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Knelson[edit]

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

The concern that has been raised is that Knelson does not satisfy WP:NATHLETE.

The editor who raised the concerns (Snow Rise) does not have time to nominate this, so I thought I would. This is a procedural nomination and I do not have an opinion either way. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I lean towards removal on this one. This article was created by an SPA who seems to have an off-project connection to the subject, with involvement by another. More to the point, it was created without establishing WP:Notability, as far as I can tell. WP:GNG is a no-go because the sources utilized are not WP:RS and the only one of the three which is kinda-sorta on the cusp of being RS doesn't provide actual detailed coverage of the subject (it merely mentions her name in a list of athletes competing at a particular event). We therefore look to WP:NATHLETE; like most of our contemporary subject-specific notability guidelines, there's a fair bit of problematic subjectivity involved in arriving at the criteria that make a person "notable", but even under the generous standards of that guideline, there is no provision which would greenlight notability here--though it is worth the mention that there is no swimming section in that guideline. Some criteria for other sports do allow for presumption of notability if an athlete who has meddled at the Commonwealth Games, others if they competed in a final heat at those games. Ms. Knelson did compete at said games, according to the article, taking fourth place in one event. I'm sure mileage will vary on the analogical reasoning of assuming a similar standard should be applied for swimmers and whether Ms. Knelson would qualify under such an extrapolated standard, but my inclination is that, given the sourcing here, this subject does not yet meet what I would consider minimal standards of notability, and should be removed from the present time. It's an atypical case requiring some discretion in analysis though. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (at least for the moment): This is a 16 year old who placed 4th in her first senior international event two months ago, and came home from the 2017 World Junior Swimming Championships with 4 medals and a World Junior Record (admittedly in a relay event). Knelson has been reported on in swimming news websites since she was 14. A News search pulls up 8 pages of results from a range of sources, which could be used to improve the article. I'm a casual swim fan from Australia, and I recognised her name. Sportygeek (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, 8 pages of results for a random name doesn't necessarily mean even one source which A) concerns this Faith Knelson, and B) would qualify as WP:RS, and C) includes sufficient in-depth coverage that goes anywhere to establishing notability. Can you provide even one or two examples from those results that you feel do? It would resolve the issue pretty quickly if you could, but I'm afraid that impressionistic evidence like "I've heard of her" and "her name gets search results" don't cut it for policy purposes here. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider CBC to satisfy WP:RS? Here's a CBC article on the world junior record set at by the Canadian medley relay team (Jade Hannah, Faith Knelson, Penny Oleksiak and Taylor Ruck) at 2017 FINA World Junior Swimming Championships. Does Swimming World Magazine satisfy WP:RS? If so, see this article. There is in-depth coverage in local press, including this article following Knelson's selection to the Commonwealth Games. There are many articles stating Knelson's 4th place performance at Comm Games, but (outside of local press) most rightly focus more on her teammate Ruck, who won a record-equalling 8 medals. I note that Knelson is currently ranked #16 in the world for the women's 100m breaststroke. She is 16, at the beginning of her senior international career. Do we really want to delete her article now, and reconstruct it in a year or two, assuming she is selected for the 2019 World Aquatics Championships and/or the 2020 Summer Olympics? Sportygeek (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last question first, in soem circumstances that it is precisely the right editorial call, per WP:CRYSTAL. As to the sourcing, I do find the the CBC to be manifestly an RS, but it mentions Knelson only once and incidentally, so no in-depth coverage there. The local coverage meanwhile, while in-depth, probably does not pass muster as RS for the purposes of establishing notability for this subject. What we really need, if we were going to approach this via GNG, is sources that are both RS and contain in-depth coverage of the subject. I still have not seen a single such sources, so I can't !vote keep on that policy.

Which leaves the SNG as the best argument. Because there is no language in NATHLETE which covers swimming, we have to try to do decide if there is a way to extrapolate from the standards for other sports to create a principled rationale for keeping this athlete. I personally am not very comfortable with that: I already have deep concerns about the amount of subjectivity that has been allowed to influence the project's inclusion standards as a consequence of SNGs being formulated by small groups of editors who are often very fixated on the topic in question, rather than allowing a more objective standard to control. Going one step further to create an ad-hoc additional standard in a content discussion and outside the policy page and the WP:PROPOSAL process seems fraught with procedural problems. As a consequence, I feel like the time for this article may not be ripe. But I'm going to wait a little longer before lodging an !vote either way. Maybe I've yet to see the silver bullet source that puts this to rest. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: satisfies notability as an athlete and sportswoman. Quis separabit? 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about the language in NATHLETE that you think she qualifies under? Because there is no section for swimming, so that seems like a dubious statement to make outright and without doubt? Are you aligning with my speculative analogical argument from above? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though not currently used in the article there is a lot of news coverage of her in indepdendent sources and I believe she does meet the notability requirements. Million_Moments (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M G Tuffen, could you be a little more specific? I did a search myself and found nothing that was both RS and included in-depth coverage. I'm still on the fence here and it would be nice to have a good source or two in order to come down firmly on the side of retaining. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be notable enough. Additionally, as User:TheSandDoctor mentioned on his talk page, I tagged the page for speedy deletion because the original author seemed to have wanted the page to be deleted, since they blanked the page, but the page was restored by an SPA with a likely conflict of interest. SemiHypercube (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability standards for sportspeople do not confer automatic notability just for competing at a junior level championship — but the referencing here consists of two primary sources, one unnecessary repetition of one of the same two primary sources, and a glancing namecheck of her existence in a news article that isn't about her, which is not enough to claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NSPORT. And I largely concur with Snow Rise's assessment of the Google search results, as well — apart from one special interest swimming magazine which is going to cover practically any swimmer who achieves anything at all whether that achievement clears our notability standards or not, the media coverage about her (which is not the same thing as "media coverage about other people which happens to mention her name in the process") doesn't go beyond "local girl does stuff" in the local community weeklies of the Cowichan Valley. That's still not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knelson did not just compete in World Juniors, she won two individual medals and was part of a record-breaking relay team. The Commonwealth Games is not a junior championship. It is unfortunate that nobody has yet developed swimming-specific notability criteria under WP:NSPORT. Sportygeek (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As stated in WP:ATH; “…A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. First, as shown, Ms. Knelson has participated in the 2017 FINA World Junior Swimming Championships an international competition with over 100 countries partaking. Second Faith has been covered by Independent – Reliable, Secondary sources such as CBS, Sporting News and Swimming World Magazine as shown here [6]. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's lots of claims of coverage, but all that's been presented is routine (and/or local) coverage of junior-level events, which is excluded per WP:YOUNGATH. She may be notable in the future (I wouldn't bet against her participating in the 2020 Olympics), but she doesn't appear to be so today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NATHLETE. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:24, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Abla[edit]

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

Searches for "Ek Abla" on JSTOR turn up nothing and only one seemingly unrelated result for the same query in WorldCat. It seems that the only source, offline or online that isn't a Wikipedia mirror is IMDb, and unfortunately that isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:NFILM. Pinging User:Winged Blades of Godric as de-prodder. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Google books shows numerouus reliable sources and there is probably more offline as an Indian silent film is of academic interest, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I ran a detailed search (in probable databases and offline book(s), whence this had a good chance of being located) but nothing except trivial name-mention(s) as a produced film and theaters, where it had ran.No commentary/review or minimal discussion of any aspect of the film .∯WBG^converse 12:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Still I will ask for a relist so that I can try to access the local dailies of the release-period.(which is going to be a herculean/impossible task).Anyways, AFAIK, chances of covering a film in vernacular(s) of those days were pretty remote, either.∯WBG^converse 12:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the content of the article, its reference, or anything else that has been found and presented gives any indication of notability. The only reasons given for keeping are "Google books shows numerouus [sic] reliable sources" and "there is probably more offline". If Google books really does show numerous sources which give the sort of substantial coverage needed then it would be very easy to tell us what those sources are, but we haven't been told. We don't make decisions on the basis of assurances from some editor that sources exist without being told what the sources are so that we can assess them: see Wikipedia:Verifiability . "There is probably more offline" is even worse, as we certainly don't decide notability on the basis of someone's guess as to what sources may exist: see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. The king of the sun (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:ADHOM and you are supposed to search for sources yourself Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:V require that an article's contents must be verifiable to readers through sources that are actually cited in the article, not just by sources that exist somewhere. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 19:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG for sure. Dial911 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:24, 6 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. Consensus appears to favor deletion. Preponderance of pro-Keep comments are light-weight and from SPA's or questionable IP's. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S. A. Zaidi[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject is director of only one film Aerials (film) which was released in the theater. He also directed The Sons of Two Suns but it was direct to video and is of questionable notability so I believe the subject does not easily pass WP:DIRECTOR here. I did Google search but it does not produce any substantial coverage in the independent RS about the person either so it fails to meet basic GNG.. There is coverage in the press and I've reviewed all the news stories, but see nothing except casual namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. For what its worth, there appears to be some COI because the creator of the page is a SPA User:Robotictrance.. Saqib (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, first of all The Sons of Two Suns has only been released in film festivals, so if there is any direct to video platform that you mention, please do let me know because in my country such a platform for releasing independent short films doesnt exist. Whats makes The Sons of Two Suns special is that it was released in film festivals only. Another thing, TV channel news videos of Rotana TV and Video links of Rotana TV with international news platforms such as gulf news and important sci-fi reviewers such as io9 are more then credible and reliable sources. So I dont even understand what is the problem of wanting to delete a page that is related to the science fiction film movement in our Gulf Arab country. I advise you to google search typing Director S A Zaidi Dubai. Or go through the numerous amount of news articles and publications given on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.31.226.240 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established. Berrocca Addict (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Berrocca Addict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And how? --Saqib (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sons of Two Suns, his film. There are 53 footnotes, but they all seem to pertain to his film or his father, or are links to Youtube and the like. Sandstein 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? If redirect, where exactly, if he directed two films?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has been established as there is a book mentioning this director and there is 3 different articles that talk about his personal life, not just his films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.65.25 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC) — 2.51.65.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not thrilled with the WP:OVERCITE, but the two films he has directed have media coverage, and so he barely passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:52, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sharrma[edit]

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

BLP1E.Quasi-trivial character, at best.TOOSOON. ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GOLDENRULE. Have notability in reliable sources. The references are about the subject and not just a minute mention. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a violation of WP:ToU. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails WP:NACTOR and falls within WP:TOOSOON territory. Being a child actor, it is almost impossible for the subject to have either "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" as laid down by NACTOR. It should also be noted that the vast weight of the article's sourcing concerns the film Tumhari Sulu and not the subject himself, who is often mentioned in passing, in a few sentences, or as part of the broader cast.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also noting that the article creator has been blocked for sock puppetry.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is one thing that is meaningless it is the term "child actor". Does this mean a 16-year-old or a 6-year-old. The article does not even hint which one it is. The closer to the latter, the stronger the arguments to delete. For either though, we need sustained, specific coverage about Sharrma, not just about films that starred other people. The article does not even convince me that Sharrma's role in even one film was significant. More to the point, it makes clear he only had one role in a notable production. When you are barrell bottoming by mentions of TV commericals to try to show notability it just does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon to be on Wikipedia. had he been in more films, we could have his article here. Dial911 (talk) 16:25, 6 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) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of public domain works with multimedia adaptations[edit]

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

The whole topic seems designed to lead to an indiscriminate list, and the attempts to keep it under control are arbitrary at best. There is a high level of OR, and nothing suggests that the topic of multimedia adaptations of public domain works (or even adaptations across multiple media which is a more accurate title) is specifically notable. A redirect is possible, but I'm not sure where. Killer Moff (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing either arbitrary or indiscriminate about this list. This is the public domain corollary to List of multimedia franchises, which includes such works from franchises still controlled by intellectual property rights. The standards are identical to those of that list. There are a relatively small number of public domain works that have in fact led to multimedia adaptations, and they are usefully listed here. bd2412 T 12:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the previous !vote that the list is neither arbitrary nor discriminate. The inclusion criterion is clear-cut. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks like a well-defined list, and there is no question that it will be useful to people who don't know which adaptations come from public domain characters instead of copyrighted characters. If there are problems with the list, they can be fixed by editing.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a filmmaker, I find this list immensely useful. I don't want to go down the road of adapting a public domain work if someone else has already done it (especially if they did a great job with it). Tostie14 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that the opposite perspective would be equally true. You would want to know that if you want to make your own adaptation of Sherlock Holmes or War of the Worlds, you are free to do that. bd2412 T 22:20, 29 June 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Chabtini[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources in article do not satisfy the GNG as they are either insignificant or primary. WP:Run-of-the-mill. The editor whose username is Z0 11:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of personal coverage. Not that I wouldn't be thrilled to know more about the Galderma Aesthetic Injector Network... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough media or news Joaomufc (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 3 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EsoTalk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software, a Google search did not find significant independent coverage (blogs, forums and fan reviews are not reliable sources). The delete arguments from the past AfD still seem valid. GermanJoe (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Surprising it lasted this long. Basie (talk) 11:16, 2 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 People's Daily#Online version. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People’s Daily English app[edit]

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

As my redirect was reverted I have no choice but to take it to AFD. The sources are simply announcements about the release of the this app. As per WP:PRODUCT this page should redirect to the newspaper's article. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep，The People's Daily English APP is a newly developed app under People's Daily. It is not a concept! I saw it publishing news, so it was written into Wikipedia. Its release ceremony was attended by Chinese mainstream media and related officials as well as diplomats in China. It also signed a cooperation agreement with Chinese government agencies, in which it released version 2.0. After that, Microsoft, Bing, Baidu, etc. also announced their presence in this area, which is the influence.

In terms of use, as the most authoritative media in China, it has developed a client that allows many English speakers to more accurately understand China.

So I created this entry and I think it complies with Wikipedia's policy and I hope it can be retained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 初闪 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC) — 初闪 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect Per nominator. One phrase in the main People’s Daily article is more than enough. Nearly any newspaper has its "app", yet we don´t have (or even need) articles for these. Pavlor (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for sure. Basie (talk) 11:18, 2 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reports Afrique[edit]

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

Not notable. The article was written by the website's founder and sourced only by the website itself and an (abysmal) Alexa ranking. A search returns, the website itself, its twitter page, the wiki article, its facebook page, an unrelated website, the website's about page, and nothing relevant after that. Cabayi (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only news stories are from themselves Joaomufc (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seem to clearly fail WP:NWEB. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:33, 5 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. Deletion and recreation would be needless bureaucracy; there is clear consensus that this page is appropriate for inclusion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Chesterfield[edit]

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

Delete. This list was created by a blocked user who seemed to specialise in niche subjects of dubious notability. My reading of WP:NOT suggests that this list is indiscriminate information as hardly any of the names apparently warrant an article. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Who created the piece has no factor in whether the piece should be deleted or not. In addition, this is not an “Indiscriminate” list. The individuals are “elected” officials of a specific location. Article is sourced and maintained. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CSC. The list of mayors of a particular city or town can be verifiably complete and provides the "retention of encyclopedic information" while each mayor may not warrant a separate article. While it is unfortunate that the article was created by a blocked user, the subject of the article/list is clearly notable. --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As argued above this is not an indiscriminate list and is content that would be expected in an encyclopedia. Equally, the fact that few of the holders have articles does not mean the post is insignificant (this is in fact not uncommon for articles of this type). Dunarc (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator withdraws the case. I accept that my rationale was incorrect and I think this case should be closed. I'm more than happy to abide by consensus. Useful learning for me so a good exercise. Thanks to all who have contributed. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delete for denial of attribution, without prejudice against another editor recreating it. The question of whether the role would be notable enough to get its holders over WP:NPOL as the subjects of biographical articles or not is quite separate from the question of whether we should keep a verifiable list of their names or not — there may be a case to be made that we shouldn't, but the ability of the mayors to satisfy NPOL as standalone biographies isn't relevant to it. The blocked user thing means we do have to withhold attribution from the blocked editor, but it doesn't preclude an editor in good standing recreating it so that they get the attribution instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REVERTBAN suggests that articles created by banned users "are eligible for speedy deletion," but deletion is decided by a case by case basis. I am ok with a procedural delete if the closer recreates the article at the time of closing if we want to withhold attribution from the blocked user. Enos733 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have no problem recreating. Already have it in my sandbox. Just let me know when. (To be honest, I hate taking credit for it though). ShoesssS ^Talk 18:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: WP:REVERTBAN does not apply, the user was not banned. Sam Sailor 01:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Yours is the only outstanding "delete" !vote. I have never heard about "Procedural delete for denial of attribution", where in the PAGs do you see a basis for that? Sam Sailor 01:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-defined list, that has the potential of becomming a valuable navigational aid, WP:NOT dosen't come into play here. Should be moved to List of mayors of Chesterfield. Sam Sailor 01:09, 6 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. Procedural Keep; multiple editors are opposed to the bulk nomination. A few pages have some support for retention. No prejudice against speedy nomination of individual pages; I believe this bulk nom prevents PROD from being used. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Staniforth[edit]

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

Delete. Many articles have been created by the blocked User:NJStaniforth which all relate in some way to a family called Staniforth. It seems that the former editor was simply bunging Wikipedia with anyone of that name or connection who just happens to be mentioned in local histories, regardless of whether they are actually notable. They are for the most part niche subjects which seem to me to fail the requirements of the GNG policy. In addition, most of the articles already carry issue templates. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as given above:

I hope I have done this correctly, from the instructions at WP:AFD. Please let me know if I need to amend or add anything. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wholesale deletion -- I agree that many of the article are on NN people, but this mass nomination does not allow for the discussion of what to do with individual articles. They are linked from Staniforth, which is about the surname, but that contains people with Staniforth as a middle name, not a surname. Surname articles are normally lists of people with that surname. A few of the people were successive owners of Darnall Hall, and their biographies might be merged there. Hey, Fiery Blades, the leading history of early modern Sheffield indicates that the family were among the leading cutlers of the town, though that does not make them notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter. I am more than happy to discuss individual cases and I fully accept that not all will be deleted. The AFD instructions recommend bundles if several items are nominated for similar reasons. I can break this bundle up if you prefer (all good practice for me) so would you do it by means of a limit per bundle or for example, separating the ones with a Staniforth surname? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing out that NJStaniforth was blocked after using FIVE different accounts in trying to influence the outcome of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hext AFD discussion which concerned another member of the Staniforth family. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to note that as these articles are very widely varied in how they would be judged (with relevant SNGs including NGEO, NAUTHOR, NSOLDIER, NCORP, NPOLITICIAN, and others(?)), I second the suggestion to separating them. Also, at least one, Staniforth Range, seems to me like a speedy keep. A couple, for instance maybe T.L. Platts, are likely so minor that a prod would not be opposed (however given NJStaniforth's behavior, AfD might be a better way to ensure consensus). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close with each article nominated individually (or bundled again if they are of the same topic as per nom's suggestion above). I can see the similarities between each of the articles but as Peter and Smmurphy said there are differences that need to be discussed on an individual basis. Nightfury 07:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate please renominate individually to make it easier for editors and the closing admin to make different calls on different articles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete all very obvious abuse of WP to promote a family. The alternative would be for the creator to agree to draftify all of these and put them through WP:AFC which is what they should have done, given the obvious COI but this is not an option given their indef due to socking. So yeah, just delete this mess. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed:
1. Keep: Charles Goore (meets NPOL, Mayor of Liverpool twice), Frederick Greenwood (magistrate), John Staniforth Patteson, Ralph Clarke, Thomas Asline Ward
2. Neutral John Hext (captain), Samuel Staniforth, Staniforth Range (This seems to meet GEOFEAT, but BEFOREing this doesn't come up with much beyond an old gazette), Staniforth Road, William Staniforth
3. Delete rest.

Bad bundle - some of these are really not notable, but some are clearly notable in a BEFORE (e.g. the first mayor of Chesterfield or the twice mayor of Liverpool). I'm not sure a narrow interest range would constitute a COI, though socking is definitely a no-no.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz fwiw, I took the name of the last sock, NJStaniforth, at face value. Writing about your family is a COI; this person appears to have been using Wikipedia as some sort of ancestry.com. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. My apologies, I should have made clear at the outset that the basic concern here is conflict of interest, as pointed out by Jytdog. The multiple-puppet issue is secondary but does underline the bad faith of the creator. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above - my vote is effectively procedural keep). I also sampled articles when voting and would generally support Icewhiz's list. I might have been slightly harder on what I was prepared to keep. Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant are not usually enough for notability. High Sheriff is enough to be notable; and a person who turned down the office on health grounds may still be notable. Ralph Clarke (mayor) is what is nominated: Ralph Clarke is a dabpage. Whether mayors are notable in the English system is debatable: it probably depends on what they did during their mayoralty and whether they were also in effect leader of the council. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. List them all individually. Mass deletions like this are never a good idea unless all articles are in the same category, not just related to the same family. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, without prejudice against renominating them as individuals. There are several different notability claims in play here which may or may not all be equally invalid or equally poorly sourced, so it's impossible to evaluate them en masse — and even the fact that they were created by a banned user only requires us to delete for denial of attribution reasons, without precluding recreation by an editor in good standing. Some of these may be genuinely deletable as non-notables who shouldn't come back at all, while others may be legitimately recreatable by an unbanned editor — so they each need to be considered individually, not just batched together en masse. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, PROD okay Some of these articles can easily be PROD-ded, and I would encourage this. SportingFlyer talk 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep There are simply too many to evaluate, please nominate on a case by case basis. From the few I looked at some seemed notable, while others probably weren't. Just because a user is banned doesn't mean they didn't have some useful contributions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:53, 5 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Delgado (politician)[edit]

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

Subject is a lawyer who has not held any political position, who is a candidate presenting New York's 19th congressional district in coming November 2018 general election.
Fails on the ground of WP:NPOL -sources are mainly routine election coverage as would be same in all candidates. If subject win the general election in Nov then recreate the page would be welcome but not until then. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment:Page passes WP:N as sources meet the "significant coverage" requirement stipulated in WP:N. Furthermore, subject just won the Democratic primary and has become the Democratic nominee to the office. CASSIOPEIA's reasoning would hold merit if this were before the primary; however, the subject being the nominee - in addition to the sources passing WP:N - creates sufficient notability to warrant the page's continued existence. Raider1918 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: (Note wording in WP:NPOL as cited by CASSIOPEIA: "page 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." Subject clearly passes this test.) Raider1918 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The claims that Delgado somehow passes notability are inherently flawed. All the coverage of Delgado is in light of his run for office. This is not enough to give him notability. A candidate for office has to be notable for something else to keep the article. Every candidate for office gets significant coverage in some publications indepent of the candidate, but that does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert's claims make no reference to Wikipedia policy on notability and instead merely make subjective claims about his personal threshold for "notability." Raider1918 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, John Pack Lambert seems to omit the critical fact that Delgado won the primary election and is the Democratic nominee. He is not simply "any candidate." There is a great difference in degree of notability between any candidate who chooses to enter a race and one who successfully becomes the party's nominee (on that note, there are many Wikipedia pages about unsuccessful candidates for public office, whose only claim to notability are their public office campaigns - see, for example, Jim Rogers). Raider1918 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rogers may not be notable enough for an article either, but the fact that he has one is not in and of itself a reason why this article has to be kept — it may, rather, be the case that his article needs to be deleted but nobody had noticed it until you pointed it out. As well, he was an unsuccessful candidate in a presidential primary, not in just one single legislative district, so regardless of whether he's actually notable enough for an article or not he's not an equivalent situation to Delgado: being a candidate in a national presidential primary is not going to be judged by the exactly the same standards as being a candidate for the House of Representatives, because they're very different contexts. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ONEEVENT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this is WP:TOOSOON. Wait until he wins the general. Pburka (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every candidate in every election always receives some campaign coverage, so the existence of some campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to say that he passes WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from having to clear WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but merely being a candidate is not enough to already get him in the door today. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of candidate is routine per WP:NPOL, and not notable outside of candidacy. SportingFlyer talk 08:04, 4 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 speedy delete. Blatant spam for non-notable bood Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's My Prince He's My Princess[edit]

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

advertising for non notable self published book (Createspace). Not even in worldcat. Amazon rank 1,147,065. No other books by this author

The ability for individuals to publish their own fictional works in this manner is a probably positive function of contemporary self publishing, and I do not mean to discourage it. But the material has no place in an encyclopedia except in the rare event that it becomes recognized and notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 29 June 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 Procedural close. Wrong forum; drafts are discussed at WP:MFD. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:7EGAS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:7EGAS[edit]

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

No notability! No references! Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 06:40, 29 June 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Hogg[edit]

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

An undrafted college player for whom the claim to notability is a buzzer beater in High School and a single strong game in the NCAA tournament. Sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage and do not go towards satisfying WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. It is possible that he will become notable, by WP:NBASKETBALL standards, but he has not yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG with coverage such as this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also in the Chattanooga Times Free Press Joaomufc (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:47, 29 June 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Len Short[edit]

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and / or not independent of the subject's company, which has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LotLinx. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, and this and the related articles all stink of COI, to boot. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:00, 3 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 09:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist rhetoric[edit]

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

Article would require a complete rewrite to remove the author's opinions and essay-like structure, much of the topic is already covered by articles like Feminism and other such content. Xevus11 (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, no, no. Deletion would be quite the wrong thing to do. Most articles start off with someone writing something down and then other people come along and improve what is said. That has already started here. The topic is clearly notable and referenced to appropriate sources. I am too old to have much knowledge of the subject matter here so I cannot helpfully judge whether the article is well expressed but it looks to me to provide a good framework and is a thoroughly worthwhile start on the sort of broad topic that is lacking on Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Essay-ish but generally legitimate content on a notable topic should be improved, not deleted. I fail to see any issues here that couldn't be resolved through the ordinary course of editing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep It looks good apperance. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not an article improvement service. The topic is quite notable -- see A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Out of curiosity, have you read that book? It shows up (twice) on the first page of a GBooks search for this article's title, and if you look closely at the book cover you notice that the title GBooks cites and you repeat is actually incorrect, as the full title would be Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, vol. 1, with A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric being the subtitle of the first part of a single, two-volume work. If you just found it there and linked it, it means you have no idea what its contents are, because there is no GBooks preview. You're technically right on what the result of this AFD should be, but that doesn't make writing comments that imply you are familiar with the scholarly literature when all you did was plug the article title into Google and copy a link to a book whose title looks the most like that of a reputable scholarly publication focused primarily on this topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reputable scholarly publication. The author, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, is a renowned expert in the field of rhetoric and her contribution is listed in the article's bibliography. As it is a critical analysis, it is an excellent source for our purposes, per WP:ANALYSIS. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Please do not create strawmen. I did not say anything about whether it was or was not actually a reputable scholarly publication, and your implying that I was attacking the author as being anything other than a renowned expert is downright insulting. My problem with your comment above was that it looked like you had Googled up the title of this article and linked the first entry you saw whose title made it look like you could present it is a reputable scholarly publication, and it looked like you would have done this whether or not this was actually the case. Your linking a duplicate entry and giving the wrong title (the one that, again, looks more like that of a reputable scholarly publication) supports this. The source can still be reputable and good for building our article regardless of whether you have actually read it, so I am not attacking the source, and your defending it against an attack I didn't make does not answer my question.

So I will ask it again: have you read it?

And if the answer is "no", I would ask how you happened across it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Andrew re WP:NOTCLEANUP. That said, I revised and trimmed the article enough to be convinced there's a manifestly notable topic here (not at all exhausted by Feminism#Theory or even Feminist literary criticism), and that there's no need to WP:TNT the existing effort. High-quality sources include:

Royster, Jacqueline Jones; Kirsch, Gesa E. (2012). Feminist Rhetorical Practices: New Horizons for Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy Studies. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Eileen E Schell; K. J. Rawson, eds. (2010). Rhetorica in Motion: Feminist Rhetorical Methods and Methodologies. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Meyer, Michaela D. E. (2007-02-27). "Women Speak(ing): Forty Years of Feminist Contributions to Rhetoric and an Agenda for Feminist Rhetorical Studies". Communication Quarterly. 55 (1). Informa UK Limited: 1–17. doi:10.1080/01463370600998293. ISSN 0146-3373.

FourViolas (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a relatively legit article on a topic that doesn't already have one; no more redundant with feminism than feminist literary criticism is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is not redundant with Feminism. --Theredproject (talk) 20:49, 1 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 09:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Publishing Group[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher which fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:GNG. Next to no sources exist, and none that do are substantive by any measure. This article likely only exists because it was created by a now-blocked COI editor, though this in itself is not a reason for deletion. The other points, however, are. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Clearly lacks coverage to satisfy NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP etc as stated by proposer. COI should really be made grounds for deletion in cases like this Lyndaship (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 15:03, 3 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 09:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mississauga Blob[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article covers a very minor incident that likely fails notability. Primary purpose for previous "keep" seems to be debunking WP:FRINGE UFO claims. –dlthewave ☎ 03:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Minor bit of (literal) Forteana which attracted no notice outside of compilers of the same. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More WP:RS may exist, such as coverage supposedly published in the Toronto Sun and The Globe and Mail, but like most pre-internet sources, they are near impossible to access and confirm. Likely delete unless sources are unearthed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As long as better sourcing can be found, and the article expanded a bit.TH1980 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Snopes — it is not our job to keep an article about somebody chucking a flaming frisbee over a fence just because some people still point to the incident as supposed proof of UFOs. This has not received the degree of reliable source coverage needed to justify an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 3 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 09:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional counties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly WP:OR fictional cruft. The vast majority of the list entries are non-notable and don't have their own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List entries do not need to be individually notable. In this case, the media in which each of these counties is featured is notable. bd2412 T 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Counties like Borsetshire are quite famous and it's easy to find substantial sources like Faulkner's County: The Historical Roots of Yoknapatawpha. Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List-items do not need to be individually notable; having a list-article actually helps to head off creation of separate articles about marginal topics. This list-article seems like an excellent reference, a good use of Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional towns and villages (2nd nomination), where I also vote "Keep" for same reasoning. --Doncram (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Andrew D. Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fictional places obviously satisfy LISTN. There is little or no original research: an extant work of fiction is a reliable source for its own contents. We have never required list entries to be notable: see eg WP:POKEMON. James500 (talk) 02:44, 5 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 09:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional towns and villages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly WP:OR and unreferenced fictional cruft. There are a number of other satellite pages that are equally as crufty.

Their names are incorrect as well, as most of them also list cities. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be better organized. --Foia req (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of fictional towns in literature especially, because the places depicted in literature are relevant, and most those listed have articles. It is only WP:OR as you say because it is not yet referenced. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usually I'm more of a deletionist kind of editor. I don't like seeing long, unsourced "list of..." articles. For this one however, I don't feel that way. There are plenty of fictional places that have been written extensively about, and there are already several sources there. I am in favor of trimming any OR/synth material in this article though. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. bd2412 T 12:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the recommendation to remove any entries that aren't blue-linked. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List-items do not need to be individually notable so having no link is okay, or having a redlink is okay, as long as the item is supported by reliable sourcing. As for the List of fictional counties (also at AFD), having a list-article actually helps to head off creation of separate articles about marginal topics. This list-article seems like an excellent reference, a good use of Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. List items shouldn't need their own article provided they are reliably sourced. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all valid topics for lists, the subjects are notable Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fictional places obviously satisfy LISTN. There is little or no original research: an extant work of fiction is a reliable source for its own contents. James500 (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC) I think an early close under WP:SNOW is in order, there being eight "keeps" and no opposition. James500 (talk) 23:39, 5 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. Copyright violation. Sandstein 09:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premium link generator[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A premium link generator is a very popular service for users who want to download easily files at file hosting services, you can search Google with keyword "premium link generators" for more information. You can consider another page Social bookmark link generator, why is this subject kept, although it is very simple with no reliable source? Mechsnipe (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since these things are generally of "shady" nature, I don't think there's going to be enough reliable sources covering it... FMecha (to talk|to see log) 20:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These clearly exist and are very widespread. It's an encyclopedic topic. Much better sourcing needed, however. Here's a scholarly paper that might be used to anchor the article:

Chan, R.; Chow, K. P.; Chan, V.; Kwan, M. (2016). "The Cloud Storage Ecosystem–A New Business Model for Internet Piracy?". IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics. Cham: Springer. pp. 237–255.

Delete the article is nearly incoherent, and appears to be a copyvio of [7]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 6 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.