< 23 November	25 November >

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

The result was redirect to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Harmony search (Geem, Kim & Loganathan 2001). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony search[edit]

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

This has been tagged as questionable notability since 2013 and still the only cited source that is actually about the topic, is the primary source by its main proponents, at least one of whom is a significant editor of the article. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple sources "actually about the topic". Sure, the original "harmony search" paper is a primary source. But the four sources that critique the use of metaphor in optimization do explicitly reference harmony search. Finally, the paper "A critical analysis of the harmony search algorithm—How not to solve sudoku" is very relevant; it deals with harmony search directly and in-depth. However, given that most of the literature is critical of harmony search, the article as is puts put undue weight on the algorithm and under-emphasizes the controversy around it. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources may namecheck harmony search, but are, as the critique section establishes, about "nature-inspired metaheuristics in general". They, and probably also this article, belong at Metaheuristic § Nature-inspired metaheuristics. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are mentions, but others are more substantial. Section 3 of (Sörensen 2013) looks at harmony search in depth, and (Weyland 2015) treats Harmony search explicitly. This seems like significant coverage to me, but perhaps it is a borderline case.
If we end up deleting, can I recommend a redirect target List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Harmony_search_(Geem,_Kim_&_Loganathan_2001). BenKuykendall (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the above-mentioned List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Harmony_search_(Geem,_Kim_&_Loganathan_2001). If the coverage of the topic consists of one primary originator and then five more-or-less passing mentions that all end up stating "this doesn't amount to much", then I don't believe we can justify an article. Topic indisputably exists though and has received some coverage, so treatment as a paragaph in a list seems suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect for above unless more neutral sources can be provided, in that case a WP:TNT may be applicable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Should anyone wish to pursue a merger, they can do so on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgunning[edit]

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

Unsourced article (other than some recent apparent self promotion) about a dictionary definition. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline, but just about scrapes in as a keep. The following books have short, but just about more than trivial coverage;

SpinningSpark 00:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common cultural activity. Article is more than a dictionary definition. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could definetly be expanded, but there's a lot of coverage about this. What I found seems to be an assortment of how-tos and weird accomplishments, but both center around the technique. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As a stand-alone article topic it fails WP:GNG, particularly the total lack of "significant" coverage. The material that can be found in references provided in the article, this AfD entry above, or additional sources on-line, are all limited to either a definition description (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) or a how-to-guide (WP:NOTGUIDE). While there are many cultural references to this activity, as it exists widely, this in itself does not equate to any degree of notability per se and it should instead be merged to another topic such as Drinking game. Loopy30 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cubic Corporation. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oscmar International[edit]

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

Lacking sigifance per WP:NBUSINESS, and it has just one external link, but not a single reference. Sheldybett (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, i found this [1] and [2], without much difficulty, they've had a name change. As the article is a stub and has been so for 10+ years it won't matter much if it is deleted. Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cubic Corporation. Note the new name is "Cubic Defence New Zealand Ltd" or "Cubic Defence NZ".[3][4]. At present article size, and seeing they've been a subsidiary of Cubic for 18 years or so,[5] there's no need for a standalone article (lacking sources and content). I do think a redirect to Cubic is worthwhile.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it is a minor subsidiary of the American company. NealeFamily (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cubic Corporation, which presently has no mention. (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Kaithakottil[edit]

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

Ordinary priest in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Holds some minor posts which are held by almost every priest in the church owing to the multiplicity of institutions under the church. No references from reliable sources and fails to qualify WP:N Jupitus Smart 17:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable priest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable priest that doesn't meet WP:RELPEOPLE or WP:GNG. PlotHelpful (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of villains[edit]

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

List of lists. More appropriate for category. Matt14451 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CLN says clearly that we don't delete lists because categories exist. The existence of a category demonstrates that this is a valid classification and so it's reasonable to have a list. Sources such as Neo-Victorian Villains and The Encyclopedia of Super Villains demonstrate that this passes WP:LISTN and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTOFLISTS. ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: is there, as yet, a list of Lists-of-lists-related deletion discussions? MPS1992 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick read of WP:AOAL shows these two (Lists of villains and Lists of superheroes) check plenty of boxes there. Plus, they assemble everything for visitors. The categories do not. They are here and there. Also, these articles are tied together with a see also, something the categories do not do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list has potential to provide more information and better organization than a category could. Pburka (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:NOTDUP, and also, some readers don't utilize categories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. The stated rationale runs contrary to WP:CLN and thus is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Regards So Why 20:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lists of superheroes to create Lists of superheroes and supervillains; it makes more sense to me. However, keep per WP:NOTDUP._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Merging as suggested by ZXCVBNM might be a good idea too but I think that can be discussed separately. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 09:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clube Nacional Nampula[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't be PROD'd because it was WP:TRAINWRECKed in this bundle nom in 2008: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma.

Per WP:FOOTYN, clubs must meet GNG (having played in a country's top league is a suggested starting point, not a guarantee). There's no sources about this club to support a GNG claim, therefore we can't maintain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This team does not exist and the article should be deleted. Teixant (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I can't even find this club exists. Giant Snowman 09:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also am completely out of luck at finding any evidence of verification or proof this isn't a hoax. SportingFlyer talk 05:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of superheroes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Duplicate of Category:Lists of superheroes BOVINEBOY2008 16:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - category is much more appropriate. Matt14451 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superheroes are listed in numerous sources and so the general concept passes WP:LISTN. Per WP:CLN, categories are not as good as lists in many ways and so we maintain numerous list for navigation and other purposes and this structural list of lists seems fine for this too. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is different to other lists in the sense that it doesn't give any other information than the links themselves. Matt14451 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominated similar article, Lists of villains for AfD also. Matt14451 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick read of WP:AOAL shows these two (Lists of villains and Lists of superheroes) check plenty of boxes there. Plus, they assemble everything for visitors. The categories do not. They are here and there. Also, these articles are tied together with a see also, something the categories do not do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list has potential to provide more information and better organization than a category could. Pburka (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:NOTDUP. Also, many readers don't use categories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. The stated rationale runs contrary to WP:CLN and thus is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Regards So Why 20:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Way State[edit]

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

Article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no particularly strong sourcing for it. They don't pass NMUSIC #2 for charting, because the only claim here is that they charted on the local campus radio station in their own hometown, not on an IFPI-certified national pop chart. They don't pass NMUSIC #8 for having an award nomination, because the award involved is the local music scene award in their hometown, and not a national award on the level of the Junos or the Polaris. And they don't pass NMUSIC #4 for touring, because that notability test is not passed just by stating that a band toured, but by showing that they received non-trivial coverage (such as concert reviews) in reliable sources about the tour -- but the only reference for touring here is one of the blogs, and even it just states that the tour was happening without being about the tour. And even the local RS coverage that does exist doesn't build a strong case for NMUSIC #1, because it consists of two short blurbs and a Q&A in which the band is talking about themselves in response to questions like "Why should people vote for you?" and "What fictional character is your music most like (and why)?" None of this is a strong basis for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination outlines the problems with the sources pretty well. My google search only turned up additional coverage in a blog and trivial run-of-mill appearance announcements. Created by SPA editor--with probable promotional intent--is likely a conflict of interest. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and reasons provided therein. -The Gnome (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of the verified oldest people. Tone 19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominga Velasco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. Her entries on the List of the verified oldest women and List of American supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she witnessed part of the Mexican Revolution, various family moves/businesses and the standard longevity secret. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Minor municipal recognition and keeping a pulse are nice, but in her case don't translate to significant coverage of her. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the verified oldest people as a useful search term and valid alternative to deletion. czar 04:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given that there is a directly on-issue policy based on broad community consensus, in this case WP:NOTTVGUIDE, telling us that our articles are not "electronic program guides", the "keep" opinions would need to be very persuasive and well-grounded in policy. That is not the case. Only Levivich (somewhat joined by Postdlf) makes a valid argument by attempting to persuade us that these are "historically significant program lists and schedules", but I don't see their argument that a random range of some 20 years is "historically significant" convincing many people here. The other "keep" opinions simply refer to past discussions instead of making arguments of their own; they thereby fail to address the WP:NOTTVGUIDE issue that is the elephant in the room here. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which is misapplied in the discussion), "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", which means that merely referring to past AfDs is not a strong argument to make in the face of clear policy compliance issues. The "keep" opinions here must therefore be given significantly less weight for mostly not making any policy-based arguments. Sandstein 11:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

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

Similar to AFD for 1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), TV schedule with minimal sourcing.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Trivialist (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per discussion and arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), to which this nomination obviously adds absolutely nothing. And restore the one deleted based on two participants here. postdlf (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unsourced for a number of years, no evidence of notability and no effort whatsoever to bring these up to standard despite previous AfD's. Most of the previous 'keep' votes were swayed towards WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy. Ajf773 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather dismissive of what were very substantial AFDs on this content with high participation, not a rebuttal of the arguments or sources presented in them. I'd rather not copy and paste all of those comments directly here, as they should be considered incorporated by reference. See also WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't exaggerate. The AfD you linked to had 7 people. Not substantial and not that much different from this one. Also, your link is an essay so has zero weight in any discusion, but if you are already reading that page, see WP:VALINFO. These pages fail WP:V (policy), they are fail WP:NOTTVGUIDE (policy) and they fail to show any WP:N (guideline). --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit conflicted. I could see some value in this topic, but the current list do nothing to establish that value. They don't even try and source the small amount of information they do have (at least on the 6 I randomly checked). I think that the minimum, these can be merged into decades so 1960s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1970s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1980s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1990s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 2000s United States Saturday morning network television schedule and 2010s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, which will reduce the ~60ish pages to only 6. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a probably better alternative to decade lists, there are also parent articles for each network season, such as 1960–61 United States network television schedule; whether these should be merged to those is a question of WP:SIZE. But there are clearly many alternatives to deletion, and not a plausible argument that this information is unverifiable notwithstanding the current state of sourcing in each article. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Another alternative might be to consolidate the prime time, weekday, late night, and Saturday morning pages into sections within one page per TV season, e.g., 1950–51 US network television schedule would have sections for prime time, weekday, etc., within one article. Combining an entire decade into one article may make that article unwieldy. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe these, in their current state, fail to show notability. I also don't think they can be notable in the current article scheme, but maybe an article that deals with programming in each decade, which has much more context to it, could be. But that is not an argument that this article could be better, its an argument that this article is not and never will be that article. As I've stated above, they also fail WP:V and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. As to comment above, those articles aren't any better. They are a giant WP:NOTTVGUIDE and while the article you linked to has some references, the two inline ones, one has almost nothing to do with the article content, the other does not support notability (for the subject), it just gives verification for the ratings. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTTVGUIDE was addressed at length in past AFDs on this content (as was notability and verifiability for network schedules generally). Suffice to say here that by its own terms NOTTVGUIDE makes clear that historic lists are not violations. So unless you're a time traveler... postdlf (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dispute the claim that this has any historic significance as it requires. Also, your argument just falls short when it's a matter of fact, that these lists are created for every year, regardless of "history" or "significance", see 2018–19 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). By this one can assume, that every TVGUIDE that has been shown is "historic" and thus exempt, which is really not what the exemption meant. --Gonnym (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - When it comes to U.S. TV network schedules, they are, and that's exactly what was found at the prior AFDs. Something else instead is contemplated by NOTTVGUIDE. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep I do think merging these into by-decades lists would be better, and that generally for at least US television, these schedules usually help in understanding programming competition (but I can't recall how bad that was for SatAM). There's definitely also the history from the golden age of animation to the death of SatAm programming that these help to support (eg [6]) Probably need some legwork to get books etc to better support. --Masem (t) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot believe that this is a serious way to catalogue TV programs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for the reasons listed in the 2007 RfD discussion (result: default keep), 2012 RfD discussion (result: keep), and 2015 RfD discussion (result: keep), and the links in those discussions to outside articles discussing the significance of TV scheduling. WP:NOTTVGUIDE says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," and these TV schedules are historically significant. Television is one of our primary methods of mass communication and cultural transmission, and the first 100 years of television is still "early television." The schedule of early TV broadcasts seems no less relevant than an early modern Olympics schedule (FA-class), the dates/years of performances during Shakespeare's lifetime (B-class), or a schedule of who was printing what where in the first 100 years of the printing press (B-class). WP:V is Verifiability; these schedules are verifiable, and are sourced in at least some (many?) of the schedules. I'm a new editor and don't understand all these policies, but I thought inline sourcing isn't required, and a lack of sourcing is a reason to expand an article, not delete it. Levivich (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," ... please note the emphasis on the word may, it doesn't automatically exclude these from being classified as WP:NOT especially without some significant third party sources. Since none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever, perhaps you are willing to provide proof of verifibility. I'm assuming the editor mostly responsible for tabulating these historical TV listings have 40+ year old TV guides tucked away somewhere. After three AfD's, nobody has been able to provide this fundamental content thus far. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best evidence that these TV schedule articles are verifiable is that many of them have references listed. (Are 18 examples enough?) I agree "may" is permissive not mandatory, but "none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever" is not accurate. Additionally, as you said, TV Guide is a reliable source for TV listings. (And you can buy old ones online; they're collectibles now.) TV listings were also published in newspapers, some of which are available online, although some (like NYTimes) are behind a paywall. There are also websites that have historical listings (reliability unknown). In addition to TV Guide and newspapers, there are books published with old schedules, which are often the sources listed in these articles. For example, The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946–Present, which won a National Book Award in 1980. These TV listings are historically significant, verifiable, do not violate any wikipolicy, and all previous AfDs resulted in keep. Why should these pages be deleted? Levivich (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A TV guide showing the schedule is the definition of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which also explicitly mentions Electronic program guide, which this is the exact same thing. Think these are notable, then create and article with some context to show how it is notable. There is not even an article about "Saturday Morning programming" which even further emphasis the point that these listings are just WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also, if you try and prove a point, please try and actually be honest. Out of all the linked articles you gave with sources, only 2 belong to the nominated list and both use a copy/paste general reference to a book "The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984." with no in-line references and nothing to show that it actually talks about anything related. And again, just showing that the list exists does not show notability (and also small nitpick, the first discussion was "no-consensus" not "keep", there is a difference). --Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Saturday-morning cartoon, which was also raised in the previous AFD. You still are just repeating objections that were responded to there and in other related AFDs, rather than advancing the discussion, or engaging with the subject matter in a knowledgeable way as to why this is significant history for broadcast television and the particular series listed (again, which has been explained in prior AFDs on U.S. TV network schedules). You are also focused on the current state of sourcing rather than whether it is verifiable. General references are fine, btw, and certainly sufficient to demonstrate verifiability (not that there's a serious argument presented that this information is not verifiable); the lack of inline citations is not a delete-worthy flaw. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I view all the TV schedule articles as one group. I can see the value in merging them in one way or another, but I do not think they should be deleted. They're notable (the schedules, as schedules, receive significant treatment from reputable independent sources, of which there are examples above and in previous AfD discussions), and they're verifiable (if one wished, one could verify that show X aired on day/time Y, by reference to reliable independent sources that exist, such as TV Guide, newspaper listings, and other examples that are listed above and in previous AfD discussions). NOTTVG permits it as a historical schedule, so that's not a reason for it to be deleted. That the sources are not yet listed in all the articles is also no reason to delete them, in my opinion. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, "unless you go and add citations, we should delete this page." If it's notable, and it's verifiable, it should stay. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - per wording of WP:NOTTVGUIDE and reasons given in previous unsuccessful AfDs linked to by Levivich and Postdlf -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not exclude these types of articles from being exempt from WP:NOT. Refer to above comments. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the wording in NOTTVGUIDE is there and seems most relevant to me. My opinion remains the same -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and restore the one that was already deleted as a ludicrous violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS attempting to override the consensus of multiple previous AfDs with vastly more participation (very curious to know why User:Sandstein closed it that way – without even relisting it once! – when this fact was quite obvious). I would not necessarily be opposed to User:Gonnym's merger proposal, as the number of pages may indeed be overwhelming for readers, but that can be discussed separately. Modernponderer (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article was unsoured. Unless anyone can, and is willing to, adequately add sourced to it (as well as all the others) it should not be restored. Ajf773 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Violations of WP:NOTDIR and WP:V. If people interested in these articles can't be bothered to source them after, in some cases, nearly ten years, I don't see why Wikipedia should continue to indulge them. No sources = no article. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. The contested articles explicitly violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Results of past AfDs that might have ignored WP:NOTTVGUIDE are irrelevant; editors can often go wrong in their suggestions and thus form a misguided consensus: Wikipedia's aforementioned guidelines have not been affected. Editors who suggest Keeping the article are invoking those guidelines without providing the exact text in them that permits this type of lists to appear in Wikipedia. Of course, there is no such text.

The lack of supporting sources only amplifies the lists' lack of encyclopaedic purpose: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not yet an indiscriminate listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the article links to clearly notable topics, consensus is that there is no specific concept being described by the title. Michig (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Food issue[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article a couple days ago. Today, Hyacinth turned it into a redirect to eating disorder. I considered that option when I PROD'd it but ultimately I think the term "food issue" is way too broad to be an appropriate redirect to any one thing, and too nebulous to serve as an appropriate disambiguation page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The food issue" is a common term in discussion of food supply. "A food issue" is a common term in discussion of eating disorders. Just because you haven't come across a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think a lot of things, but I try to make assertions when I want things to happen or not happen. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and found it essentially in use as a descriptor, not a technical term - in the same way you might refer to a "heart issue" or a "gasoline issue". It just means there's a problem with something. We don't make disambiguation pages for every possible combination of two words that might refer to something we do have an article about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is this a keep !vote, or are you just trying to make snide comments about the nominator? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete per nom. No dictionaries that I've checked have listings for "food issue" (can't access the OED at the moment, which would be worthwhile to check). The phrase isn't even used at Eating disorder which is where it was trying to dab or redirect to. A quick google search for "food issue" is mostly returning magazines that have special food issues, and not any sort of technical term. As a dab page, it's not structured correctly (lots of (vague) links per entry, listed as a stub, etc). Barring any evidence that this is indeed a technical term that's in use (and not just a fairly generic use of English), this shouldn't even be a redirect, due to the vagueness and the other possibilities, as mentioned above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A quick google shows that the term 'food issue' appears in many books and articles from reputable publishers, over at least 30 years, including in 1988 World Food Conference Proceedings: Issue papers (Iowa State University Press)[7], Trade, Food Security, and Human Rights: The Rules for International Trade in Agricultural Products and the Evolving World Food Crisis (Routledge)[8], Localizing Global Food: Short Food Supply Chains as Responses to Agri-Food System Challenges (Routledge)[9], Agriculture, Food Security, Nutrition and Health in North-East India (Mittal Publications)[10], 'The global food issue' in The Guardian[11], 'The Food Issue: The Science of Feast, Fuel and Farm', Scientific American[12]. It certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As it stands, though, the page does not give enough information to be an article, and does not work well as a disambiguation page, because it does not link to any clear articles about either usage (why is Famine not included?). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: But there's nothing to meet any guidelines because this isn't a term that's in use in any but the most generic form. You could probably find more results if you looked for "food problem" or "horse issue", but those aren't going to be valid articles, or even valid disambiguation pages. Not only that, but your #6 is exactly what I mentioned above – it's an issue of a magazine about food. That doesn't count. And why would famine be included? We could just as well include E. coli, or Food presentation, or Food safety, or Food allergy, or ... Those are all food issues. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly it. There is no evidence that "food issue" is a concrete concept with any particular definition. The phrase is simply a noun plus another noun that indicates there's a problem that has to do, in this case, with food (or that a magazine is spending the month talking about food). You could tack "issue" onto any given word and wind up with a similar descriptive phrase; that doesn't mean we need a disambig page for every possible one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, number 6 of my links is not an issue of a magazine about food. It's a one page article in the Guardian newspaper. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the Guardian is your fifth link. Your sixth link is to Scientific American's food issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - From the titles RebeccaGreen presented, I assume that all of these publications are using the phrase to refer to issues with global availability of food and/or the sustainability of food production. Those are two quite different meanings to the one assumed above (issues an individual has with food, redirected to eating disorder). That suggests to me that, as a phrase, it doesn't have a clear an unambiguous meaning; rather, it's a couple of words that could be used together in different contexts to mean different things. On that basis, I don't see why we need it as a page; if we are going to keep it, a disambiguation page would seem necessary to direct people towards the relevant context. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GirthSummit, I was thinking that the second point on the Food Issue page relates to issues with global availability of food and/or the sustainability of food production, largely because it mentions sustainable agriculture, but I have to say that I find that point rather confusing, as it puts together five types of disputes (between whom?) over about a dozen topics, which all have to do with food production or consumption, but in different ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)

Delete. As others have said, there is no evidence the combination of the words is a concrete topic. You can put "issues" behind almost any word and get google results, but that far from means anything towards GNG. There's nothing to merge, and any issues or controversies related to food would just get handled at food or more concrete topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Landing[edit]

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

I have looked through the first 2500 results of a Google Search for "National Landing" -Amazon (that is show me results for the phrase National Landing that do not also mention Amazon) and have found no such mention referring to this neighborhood. It seems to have been a phrase entirely invented in the last few days. It is entirely possible it will have lasting notability, but we simply don't know that yet. I suggest that a redirect is preferable to deletion - given the intertwining of this term and Amazon HQ2 I suggest it redirect (or perhaps a merge and redirect) there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Passes WP:NGEO... (Full disclosure, I am original author)... numerous independent sources have provided SIGNIFICANT coverage ~19,600,000 ghits , and public officials such as the Governor of Virginia have recognized it as a "place." The fact that your search string includes "-Amazon" is what makes it lack any coverage. Yes, NL is newly announced in the last several days, and is closely associated with HQ2, BUT that doesn't make this WP:RECENTISM, it just makes it a new geographic reference that encyclopedia readers will want to understand when it is referenced. Amazon HQ2 is not a PLACE, it is a corporate headquarters located in at least two places. National Landing is a place that will include Crystal City, VA, Potomac Yard, VA as well as other places. MPS (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this This place does not even exist yet WP:TOOSOON, ALL descriptions of this place are in fact Crystal City, nobody even knew what this place was until the Amazon announcement (because it doesn’t exist), it was created for Amazon, there are no reliable sources to cover it outside of recent Amazon HQ2 reporting, and it will not be remotely notable until next decade at the earliest.Trillfendi (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

when you say "there are no reliable sources to cover it outside of recent Amazon HQ2 reporting" I think you are not using the definition of Reliable Sources correctly... the fact is that many independent and reliable media sources, completely unaffiliated with Amazon, have covered the creation of this zone. It was WIDELY reported. There is also no question that there is government recognition of this new location designation -- The Governor of Virginia and the two official local government entities (the city of Alexandria and the County of Arlington) have officially vouched for the "reality" of this place. What other "reliable sourcing" do you need? What are the conditions under which the essay known as WP:TOOSOON no longer applies? Are you saying National Landing doesn't "exist" until they get a post office or something? Peace, MPS (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to speak for Trillfendi but speaking for myself my notability concerns are that notability is not temporary and we do not know, as a lagging indicator, if coverage of this name will be sustained. I could have made this point more clearly in my nomination and this is why, I feel, the lack of coverage outside of Amazon is important to this discussion. National Landing might be a vibrant community in 5 years or it might be mocked as an attempt by a corporation and government officials to rebrand parts of a city. We simply don't know yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPS When I say outside of Amazon reporting I'm not talking about the blog in which they post company announcements. Common sense. This location in the current state is an abstract idea. That governor announcement even mentions a metro station that, again, does not exist because it hasn't been built yet. They talk about these locations as if they're already there (again, it's Crystal City and Pentagon City that they're rebranding) but every headline is some variation of this, this, and this. I'm certainly not taking a politician's press release over facts. "National Landing" is Crystal City and Pentagon City right now (which are really just Arlington anyway). As it stands, there's simply nothing to write about–I mean you gave 3 sentences for heaven's sake.Trillfendi (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think I know how you both may feel. Several years ago in Richmond, Virginia, city leaders tried to "rebrand" Shockoe Slip and Shockoe Bottom to become the "River District" ... They had a website and everything... It was widely covered and a lot of locals were like, "that is dumb, there is no such thing" ... wikipedians ended up archiving the "place" on Neighborhoods of Richmond, Virginia rather than give it its own article. I understand the desire to redirect to HQ2, but if you want to redirect, I honestly feel National Landing should go to a list of neighborhoods (and have a description of boundaries etc), not redirect to a corporation HQ article. The complicated thing is that NL crosses borders of municipalities, so it would have to be Neighborhoods of Northern Virginia and not Neighborhoods of Arlington. The other thing is that some list pages (such as list of sandwiches) have a rule that says you to establish article nobility before they will allow on their list. I don't see the harm of a stub article with clear notability that sits for a while and aggregates information as it becomes available. Where do you see this emerging information as best being housed on wikipedia? Peace, MPS (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of this discussion seems to have been based on the confusing description "planned suburb", which I've just fixed in the article. It's not a planned suburb; it's a new name for existing suburbs. Notability isn't based on whether or not locals will use the name (as is discussed in this article devoted to the topic), but rather on coverage in RS. The name has received enough coverage to meet notability, including articles about the name itself, and it continues to be used, for example in articles covering Virginia Tech's plans for its new Innovation Center (e.g., [13]). Eperoton (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of reliable sources discussing this place/place name. I think this becomes especially clear in light of Eperoton's well-considered edit from "planned suburb" to just "area" -- and there may be other ways to frame it that could be better still. Per local authorities, it is not "just Crystal City" but rather a wider area that, the authorities say, should be considered under one umbrella. Yes, the name first became public because of the HQ2 project, but that's why you can't run a Google search for it, exclude the word Amazon, and conclude there aren't any reliable sources left. Of course any mention of the area is going to mention Amazon! Even if the name sticks and starts dotting highway signs and postcards in five years, 99% of the reliable sources about it are still going to mention Amazon because HQ2 is going to be a huge part of the identity of the area going forward. And conversely, as long as Amazon and the local governments and commercial interests are using "National Landing" to refer to the neighborhoods around HQ2, the name will have some currency and notability through sustained coverage of that development as it grows. The name may or may not "happen" long term, but in the near to mid term, the name and the concept of the overall area are notable and amply documented. Readers will continue to seek information about this place that continues to be mentioned in news articles, and rather than surprise readers with a redirect to Crystal City (which is also factually incorrect) or a generic "Neighborhoods of ___" article, Wikipedia should bring them to an updated, well-sourced article about the place they want to know about. As a result, I agree with MPS that the best course is to keep the page, maintain it as things develop, and if it turns out that the name ultimately does not stick, it can then perhaps be moved under a neighborhood list subject to the caveats above. I believe the "not temporary" guidelines support and even require this: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage," but notability may be reassessed from time to time in future AfD discussions. -EightYearBreak (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Partially Merge into Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia without prejudice toward recreation if the name sticks. Quoting from WP:SUSTAINED: "New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ... If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." It seems clear that what we're talking about here is an entity that has only been covered in the context of a single event. Until the neighborhood is covered in a context not directly related to Amazon's announcement, I don't think it satisfies WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Regarding what to do for a redirect, I think it should go to Crystal City because people who search for it on Wikipedia are going to be looking for an a description of the neighborhood, and even though National Landing doesn't exactly correspond to Crystal City, it's the closest match among entities that have articles. Some of the information can be merged, so long as it doesn't violate WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. - Sdkb (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you consider the Virginia Tech Innovation Campus and/or the Redevelopment of Potomac Yard (neither of which are in Crystal City or Arlington) to be indicators of sustained (not a single AMAZON / JBG announcement event) coverage and development of National Landing? Would wikipedia coverage of these two notable initatives be simply "dropped" during the merge because they are outside the scope of the "Crystal City" focused article? When you say "partially merged" what are you suggesting shoudl be left out? Peace, MPS (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Landing is (in principle) a place, not a person or event. I read "not a newspaper" to be focused primarily on avoiding original research and overemphasis on details of "breaking news" that turn out not to be all that important. (Biographies, of course, are different from other articles for a whole host of legal and other reasons.) While "National Landing" as a term and concept are new, the fact that the state, the two relevant local governments, two major corporations, and a major university (at least) have all signed on to this branding should at least raise a presumption that it won't be ephemeral. It does not make sense to me to delete this article--which has verified reliable source information and could certainly have a lot more added--only to have to re-create it in six months. What's the benefit there?

I also do not think a redirect and merger to Crystal City makes sense. The point that has repeatedly been made is that the National Landing concept was created specifically to include more than just Crystal City. If this article does not provide a sufficient description of the neighborhood, the easy fix is to add it. Alternatively, as of this writing, the first sentence says "National Landing is an area in Northern Virginia encompassing parts of the Crystal City and Pentagon City neighborhoods of Arlington County and the Potomac Yard neighborhood in the city of Alexandria that has been announced as one of two locations for Amazon.com, Inc.'s HQ2 headquarters project"--with links to each of the existing neighborhood articles for readers who want more color than this article provides right now. One further change that might be made to improve this and contextualize it more regionally would be something like "...that has been announced as one of two locations for Amazon.com, Inc.'s HQ2 headquarters project (in Crystal City), as well as the location of Virginia Tech's planned Innovation Campus (in Potomac Yard)." --EightYearBreak (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS: I wouldn't consider either of those articles indicators of WP:SUSTAINED, because both prominently mention in the headline the single news event that all of the coverage of National Landing has been tied to so far (Amazon's decision to locate there): "Helps Attract Amazon to Washington, DC Region" and "as part of Amazon deal" respectively. Regarding merging, the notable parts of the article that involve Pentagon City or Potomac Yard can easily be merged into those respective articles. - Sdkb (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if we just renamed the article to Redevelopment of Crystal City and Potomac Yard ... there is ample coverage over the last 4 years of the new Metrolink bus service and other transportation changes (see transportation section), the development of Potomac Yard to include a new metro stop (see Potomac Yard section) the redevelopment of Oakville Triangle (see article Oakville Triangle and VA Tech section) and the branding campaign (New section added today on the branding)... what you have is a redevelopment of "The Area On The Potomac By the Airport" that has been occurring for years and now has emerged with a municipally-approved name and a high-profile anchor tenant. I just think that this redevelopment is neatly encompassed by the article title "National Landing" Peace, MPS (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the advantage of that over just incorporating that info into the existing articles for the neighborhoods? I don't doubt that there are significant activities happening in the area, or even that some economic trends are shared between the neighborhoods, but I don't think we can create an article about it until National Landing is widely recognized as a single neighborhood, which it just isn't yet. I should also mention that it's clear you put a lot of really solid work into the article, and I think the majority of it can be kept and used to improve Wikipedia by merging it into existing pages. - Sdkb (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EightYearBreak: The fact that the portion of WP:SUSTAINED I quoted above mentions companies, events, and people, all by way of example, indicates to me that it is meant to apply to any entity, including a place. - Sdkb (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Partially Merge into Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia for all the reasons Sdkb said. It's a reasonable step to take at this time, and it allows for the decision to be revisited if Amazon and JBG Smith succeed permanently in their plan to rebrand the area. --Steve Foerster (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As discussed above, it is not just JBG and Amazon... the separate municipalities of Arlington County and Alexandria BOTH recognize this name, as well as the Governor of Virginia. It may be a branding effort, but it is not simply a corporate effort. Government is involved. Specifically, the two separate governmental entities who have juristiction over "National Landing" areas. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A proposed new geographic subdivision need not even come into existence to be notable, if it receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources. See Jefferson (proposed Southern state). bd2412 T 03:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MPS's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there is lasting notability, given that (1) this is sufficiently covered that it meets WP:GNG and will receive enough future coverage to meet WP:SUSTAINED; (2) the National Landing article would give an undue amount of weight to the Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia article if it were merged; (3) it is recognized by the respective governments of Arlington County, City of Alexandria, and Commonwealth of Virginia; and (4) National Landing was just announced, so of course there would be relatively few search results. If it turns out that National Landing is completely coterminous with something else, then sure, we can merge these articles epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is lasting notability since it is has a connection to Amazon HQ2. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Whether locals use the name is irrelevant, what matters is what reliable sources do. Heck, we don't even call the airport by its name. And while I'm being somewhat flippant, that's actually a pretty good example - most reliable sources call it Reagan, or Reagan National, but not just National, so that's what we do. Plus nobody has offered one iota of evidence that this name is even the slightest bit controversial among locals. Smartyllama (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basheer almajali[edit]

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

Probality fails WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable police officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions and quotes by this person do not suggest WP:ANYBIO or another notability criterion is satisfied. Apparent autobiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable police officer that doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Couldn't find sources PlotHelpful (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I have added a PROD notice. –User 45 65 41 14:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PRODNOM you can't prod an article that's at AfD. You can place a speedy tag, but I don't see an appropriate speedy category here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bill McLaren#Bill McLaren Foundation. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McLaren Foundation[edit]

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

No evidence that it is important or noteworthy as a charity: its website appears inactive since 2016. Had some publicity upon its launch reflecting the popularity of the man it is named after, but no evedence of intrinsic notability. Kevin McE (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. The charity does appear to be ongoing, advertising events in 2018 and 2019, but I agree with the nom that it's not noteworthy in itself. The Foundation has a section in Bill McLaren's article and I reckon that's sufficient.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with User:Bcp67 that there is not enough to suggest the foundation is notable enough to have its own article and that it can easily be covered in the Bill McLaren article. Dunarc (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill McLaren#Bill McLaren Foundation, where the content is largely the same as here. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Barbagallo[edit]

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

The only two refs given here do not actually link to anything about the subject of this article, but even if they did, I am not certain that only placing second in such a competition means the subject warrants an article. A Google search turns up LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Am not seeing in-depth discussion in independent sources anywhere. A loose noose (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable skier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I would say finishing second at a continental championship would show notability, but not when there are only 2 entrants (and she finished 16 minutes behind the other woman). I searched the ISMF website and found nothing besides the 2009 result and my own internet search didn't find significant independent coverage of her. Papaursa (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If it were not for the assertions of WP:CV, I would probably close this as No Consensus. But, the arguments that this is a copyvio are sufficiently persuasive that I'm going with delete. Honoring copyright is a bright line requirement. An argument that you're, not totally convinced it's copyvio isn't good enough. We need to know that it's not. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of people saved by Oskar Schindler[edit]

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

After a discussion at Schindlerjuden, this content was removed from that article. Now it has appeared separately. The full list is inherently non-encyclopedic. If a reliable primary source of the material exists, it could be included at Wikisource. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May have been copied from here? The format is the same. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Schindler's Legacy: True Stories of the List Survivors or Real Schindler's list expected to make $2.4m in sale. See also WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew D. (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reason to have an article about the list, which we do at Schindlerjuden. It's not a reason to have a copy of the entire list. Without the list, I believe this page to be an exact duplicate of Schindlerjuden. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete COPYVIO list No indication that the elements copied from the page linked by Clarityfiend above are "intuitive" and non-arbitrary to the point where copyright doesn't apply unless indicated otherwise. The ordering, for instance, looks to be an arbitrary creation of the website in question, and copying the exact words used to describe their occupations (even though they are in German!) is definitely not cool. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list does look like a straight lift. Shame as otherwise I might vote keep, as this is just what we should have on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge back into Schindlerjuden if this list is not enough on its own) Clearly a notable list. I'm also not totally convinced it's copyvio. All of this information, including the German occupation names, would have been in the original list. I think the formatting might even be the same as on the original list, too. Linguistical (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or return the list to the page Schindlerjuden. The list is certainly notable; as a group, the people saved are notable. I'm not sure what the concerns about COPYVIO are - the lists are over 70 years old; there are several copies of the lists; who is going to claim copyright? If there is a problem with the exact abbreviations being used, then full English equivalents could probably be used instead. The sortable table and the English translations of the occupations are useful. The reasons for not keeping the list in the Schindlerjuden article seem mainly have been that it's too long (the format of a scrollable table set within the webpage avoids that), and that it's indiscriminate! Comments included "the level of detail is excessive", and "Just a list of a thousand non-potable people" (? I would have thought non-potable meant undrinkable, so I don't know how that applies to people). I have not encountered Requests For Comment about specific pages before, but I wonder how widely it was canvassed? The comments seem very dismissive of what is a widely known list, regarded by many as highly significant. Also, I think this should have been added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Lists of Judaism related deletion discussions.

Keep Notable list, even if the individual items are not inherently notable in their own right. The Oskar Schindler article is long enough as is without merging this content back in. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schindlerjuden per all above comments. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarini Choudhury Govt. Girls H.S. & M.P. School[edit]

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

The page do not qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is no notability Vrisle (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG currently Spiderone 20:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Secondary school + exists = notable. This one has more coverage than many which are kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not every school is notable; please explain how this meets WP:GNG. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 10:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every secondary school is notable whether or not they meet GNG. Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If your other stuff based argument were accepted by any kind of consensus at AfD these articles would not universally be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay. While secondary schools usually survive AfD, they are not automatic keeps (e.g. Peninsula Christian School). In the cases of recent AfDs, the secondary schools survived because editors found additional sources. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In the cases of recent AfDs the secondary schools survived AND editors found additional sources. It's not possible to deduce from that that the secondary schools survived BECAUSE editors found additional sources. There's as much evidence for my point of view, which is that secondary schools survived because secondary schools always survive. Also, my theory is more explanatory than yours as it covers the many, many cases where editors did not find additional sources and the secondary schools survived anyway. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary schools always survive? See Kishorchak Banamali High School (closed as delete 12 November 2018) and Shayama Prasad Shikshayatan High School (closed as merge to locality 13 November 2018). Notability is not automatic. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That happened after I made my comment so it's probably attributable to the observer effect. It certainly doesn't support your argument. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few older ones from this year so it is doubtful that the results had much to do with this nomination or your comment...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daneshmand High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantul Mahakali High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honsbridge International School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenceslao National High School. Admittedly a very large proportion are kept but that is not because of an essay but because of sourcing. i also think that you have quoted the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES without reading it recently because it states that following the 2017 RFC:

* Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
* WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.

--Dom from Paris (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" thing is just an essay. It certainly doesn't control anything. Also, the reason given, that it "promotes" circular reasoning, is only valid if it does in fact promote circular reasoning in a particular instance, which is not the case here. My reasoning is not circular so there's no reason to avoid the argument, which certainly seems to be confounding you. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so if I understand rightly, you are using an essay to show that this article should be kept but this same essay says not to use this essay as an argument in a deletion discussion and says that it should be added to another essay as an argument not to use in a deletion discussion but because this second essay is an essay you say that you are going to ignore it...because it's an essay...you are right you have confounded me...I have no idea how to reply to this kind of logic...I feel a little bit like like John Yossarian...Dom from Paris (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an essay. It's an explanatory supplement to a policy. You're citing an essay to explain why we should ignore an explanatory supplement to a policy. Does that ease your Garnett-Fleischaker syndrome? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a fun RfC. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you're right I was fooled by another editor calling it an essay. But that does not negate the fact that it says in black and white that not all secondary schools are presumed notable just because they exist and that it shouldn't be used in a deletion discussion. So when you say Every secondary school is notable whether or not they meet GNG. Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that means you have either not read it recently or have chosen to ignore the part that you don't like. At the top of the outcomes page it says "Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles"." We have 6 exemples of decisions at afd to show that unfortunately this statement If your other stuff based argument were accepted by any kind of consensus at AfD these articles would not universally be kept. is inaccurate. If you wish to maintain your !vote based purely on a supplement that says not to use it in a deletion discussion and suggests that your argument is weak or illogical that's your choice but it will most probably be ignored. If you want to save this article I would suggest looking at the actual sources and if you consider they are OK base your !vote on that otherwise look for more as I have done and you may be more successful than I. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying that all those secondary school AfDs that were decided as keep were wrongly decided even though they didn't give sources? That seems unnecessarily dismissive of the thoughts of so many experienced editors. But OK. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows that this school still exists (how many students? how many staff?) or was ever sufficiently large to have been considered notable. Just because it is called "secondary school" doesn't make it one. We should not be !voting just on a name but on sources. This source suggests that is more of a primary school than a secondary school [14] and the fact that it does not have dedicated premises but seems to be housed in a social club begs in favour of a disctinct lack of notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indian newspapers are notoriously hard to search, and in this case there are variations in name usage as well as in transliteration. As usual, I presume I could find more if I could search in the local language,but even then, relatively few stories are archived online compared to western newspapers. One also has to reckon with less coverage of girls' education than of boys'. (I did a little searching for something on Tarini Charan Choudhury/Choudhary, who appears to have inspired the foundation of many schools, but didn't have any luck.) That said, I did find further sources (as well as additional obituaries of Mamoni Raisom Goswami mentioning her attending the school). It's a school with decades of history that gets mentioned in a number of English-language sources and has at least one notable alumna. Making allowances for the circumstances, including its being a girls' school, I believe we should keep this in the spirit of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as well as WP:WORLDVIEW. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but how do you know the school has decades of history? There is one reference from the 50s that it had 1 student. There are no reliable sources to show that the school actually exists after that as a secondary school. The only source I found says it accepts children from the age of 3, is co-ed and it's address is in a social club. This may have nothing whatsoever to do with the the girl's secondary school in the source. There are plenty of very good notable schools in India that have pages. I do not know why you are bringing world view into this. Approximately a third of the articles I have come across on new pages review are from India and Pakistan and most are very thoroughly sourced. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because girls' schools are subject to entrenched bias, especially girls' schools in the developing world. It's quite clear from the web pages concerning the school that it is all-ages, including both a kindergarten with aminimum age of three and a high school/secondary school that prepares for state exams; that may be what the alphabet soup after the name means. We also don't know what the "club" is; for all I know it could be a community centre, and some accounts have the school adjacent rather than in it. Maybe the school receives its mail there. Either way, even if they teach classes in the back room of a social club, that doesn't bear on notability. (I've taught at a degree-granting institution that rents space above drug stores for most of its classes. We have an article on it, last time I looked.) Whether the school is still in existence is also immaterial (though it demonstrably existed earlier this decade). One student, fifty students, or 600 students at the outset also doesn't matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed something as I did not see a reliable source that shows they prepare for state exams. Are they affiliated to a school board and if so which one? One of the sources would not open for me this may be what I am missing. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For one, see this source I added, some kind of site for info on the city: Secondary Education Board of Assam (already listed unsourced in the infobox) and mentioning entry to years/forms 5–10 and the two Sixth Form years, 11 and 12; it's also called Higher Secondary in some sources (that would be the H.S. in our title). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an AfD contributor from India, I can probably add some light on these sources. Based on my searches and this Autobiography,^[1] I strongly believe The school's name is "Choudhuri", so the current name is good. For some reasons Telegraph while writing about its notable and highly awarded alumni Mamoni Raisom Goswami, calls it "Chandra".^[2] This local newspaper^[3] calls it "pioneering institution for girl education, the Tarini Choudhary Government Girls Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School". Anyway, based on these sources, I can confirm that this school exists and is reasonably notable and historical school of Guwahati. Please note that all these sources i referred are in English language, while the local language is Assamese. I can safely assume that there are enough Assamese sources that covers the subject satisfying WP:SIGCOV. I cant read Assamese and these English sources are enough for me to vote a keep here. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Goswami, Mamoni Raisom (1990). The Unfinished Autobiography. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. ISBN 978-81-207-1173-0.
^ https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/north-east/schools-recall-priceless-pupil/cid/327691
^ https://www.sentinelassam.com/news/shortage-of-staff-leaves-hs-schools-in-lurch/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP We know it likely exists and just about scrapes notability per the above references. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And ban AFDs about bona fide high schools in general, as a waste of time. Let it be. --Doncram (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added two sources, one of which calls it a "pioneering" school, so I think it is notable. The article on Jupitora Bhuyan says she attended the school, but I haven't added that as I couldn't find a decent reference. Tacyarg (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added since the nomination show the school clears the WP:GNG bar. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly this article would benefit from substantial expansion. However, based on the sources found, this school meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GNG has now been satisfied. I want to register that I find it worrying that editors would argue that secondary school AfDs should be banned, however! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Face type[edit]

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

This is not a useful disambiguation page. You would not type in this page name and expect to reach either of the pages listed. Natureium (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree not useful. Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there were an article about Shapes of faces,[15][16] there'd be someplace to redirect to, but there ain't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content, unneeded disambiguation, not useful --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G6. Type face is not known in the article as face type. I considered a redirect to Face#Shape but I think delete is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majority favour delete. Arguments for keeping are weak. Michig (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki F. Matsumori[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing name checks in independent reliable sources; no significant coverage in said necessary sources appears to exist.

Furthermore, four of the sources in the article are primary, which are not usable to establish notability, and the Deseret News source in the article is about the subject's husband, and only provides a name check of this subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The above keep !vote is not based upon Wikipedia's notability standards. Furthermore, there is no presumed notability for religious subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as subject is a female leader in the Mormon church, which seems notable, but I am having trouble finding reliable independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the !vote directly above –

1) The subject being female does not create notability; notability is not gender-based.
2) There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
3) The utter lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage about the subject is exactly why the subject is not notable, as per Wikipedia's standards.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG all the sources are affiliated to the LDS including Deseret news which is owned by the LDS. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep !votes lack guideline-based rationale. The delete !votes (including the nom, that is) are significantly strong in arguments. Relisting to see if clearer consensus can emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass GNG (or some appropriate SNG). This subject does not. Sources in the article are either not independent (Ensign, Church News, lds.org) or not significant (husband's obituary in Deseret News). Search finds only passing mentions in routine coverage of church announcements, or brief quotes without additional analysis. It doesn't add up to significant coverage of this subject, and there is no other legitimate claim to notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl C. Lant[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Various source searches are only providing name checks, short quotations, and very fleeting passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general presidents of the primary are clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The above keep !vote is not based upon Wikipedia's notability standards. Furthermore, there is no presumed notability for religious subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable on a basic level. More articles on female leadership in Christian communities, particularly Mormonism, would IMHO be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the !vote directly above, while you're entitled to your personal opinion, –

1) The subject being female does not create notability; notability is not gender-based, and notability is also not based upon hunches (e.g. "seems notable")
2) There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
3) The utter lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage about the subject is exactly why the subject is not notable, as per Wikipedia's standards.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO all the sources are affiliated. The keep !vote stating that all general presidents of the primary are clearly notable should be ignored as per WP:Clearly notable and I agree with the analysis of the other keep !vote, which is a case of WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC and a personal opinion not based on policy or guidelines. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the two Keep !votes lacking guideline or policy basis, and the two Delete !votes having substantial weight, I see consensus tending towards Delete here; but to be on the safe side, am relisting for a week more to explore if clearer consensus can be garnered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to the nominator's claims, there is presumed notability for some religious subjects. If this extends to Catholic bishops it should extend to the top leaders of international religious organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Contrary to the claim directly above, WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is a supplement, which states in part atop, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It is not a guideline or policy. At the end of the day, it remains that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and does not demonstrate adequate notability. The keep arguments are based on opinion, not policy. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject has not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are Church publications and no more independent than any other organization's public relations output. Search of newspaper databases finds an interesting pattern where apparent non-routine independent coverage (e.g. in Deseret News) eventually shows itself as either written by Church News staff or derived from LDS newsroom releases. Consensus is that religious subjects have to meet the notability guidelines. Many other religious subjects do, hence the results documented in WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. This subject does not. Bakazaka (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Wright[edit]

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

Restored following PROD at the subject's request, but there's no evidence he passes the notability requirements for college football athletes nor does his subsequent career establish general notability. StarM 03:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article created by a single purpose editor. The sources in the article are either not "independent" or do not constitute "significant" coverage. Fails under WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article is written, it seems to be somewhat promotional in nature and the sources don't seem to be providing any notability or significant coverage--just basic statistics, which widely are considered to not be enough to pass the threshold of notability standards. I also see the subject as failing WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH .--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. I don't see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Papaursa (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI PRODed this page months ago because the subject is clearly not notable. The deletion was literally protested by the subject himself in order to have the page about him un-deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Lake (camp)[edit]

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

no apparent evidence of notability -- and there was nothing more is the previous copyvio version either DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete no secondary/independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet 0[edit]

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

This looks to be an academic project which never got wide attention. No independent references, no inline references, no claim of importance or significance, no commercial deployments, and nothing found in a Google search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their 2004 Scientific American article has 681 citations according to gscholar. SpinningSpark 17:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article definitely needs cleanup, but it does seem to be a notable concept per the above citations. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. François Robere (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is still reasonable balance between the justified !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent F. A. Golphin[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. PROD contested. There's Google hits but no news, no good sources about him. When debating notability amongst authors, it's not what they write but what reliable sources write about them. The two references quotes as demonstrating his notability in the contesting of the PROD were both press releases. Ifnord (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. Mostly primary/self-published sources. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to have published a fair number of books but searching found zero reliably-published reviews of any of them. That's not a good sign for WP:AUTHOR nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christian. As an interim measure. There is consensus to not keep this as an article, but not consensus about whether and where to merge or redirect to. Editors can still work this out on the talk page. Sandstein 10:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xian (abbreviation)[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. We don’t normally have articles on words or abbreviations. The etymological information belongs at wiktionary. The usage for e.g. Christian or Christian (given name) belongs in those articles. None of the sources discuss the topic in depth, as required for notability – they just seem to be dictionary definitions. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian (given name) - nom is correct that abbreviations belong with the article on the primary name, otherwise it seems an unwarranted CONTENTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about merge to Christogram? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This stub's history goes back to a messy attempt to over-write a long-standing redirect in this edit in 2016. PamD 23:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to have enough sources which describe the abbreviation. As a second choice, Redirect to Christian (though not the given name article), but only after adding a sourced statement in that article about the use of this abbreviation, so that readers will understand why they are there, whether they've come directly or from one of the several incoming redirects such as Xtian, Xianity, etc. PamD 23:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly has sufficient sources, that isn't the cause to get rid of it, the reason is it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Redundant to what? It's certainly not just an abbreviation for Christian (given name) to which you suggested redirecting it. PamD 08:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on looking at the given name article I can see there's overlap, but not total redundancy. Christian (word) redirects to Christian: perhaps as well as an etymology section there should be an "abbreviations" section there. It's not appropriate for the abbreviation, used in a wider range of senses, to redirect to a given name, especially given the wider range of abbreviations like Xianity which are mopped up in this article on the abbreviation. PamD 09:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment if it‘s used on multiple pages then disambiguation would be appropriate. That’s actually where I noticed it, on Xian (disambiguation), so e.g. Christian and Christian (given name) could be listed there in place of the entry for this page, then this redirected to the dab page. The dab page also has a link to wiktionary for those looking for a dictionary definition.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The abbreviation isn't notable--it exists and is used but that doesn't mean it's notable. It's sources are mostly trivial mentions or dictionary definitions, no substantive coverage appears in a search of google, google scholar, or google news so I'm not convinced it satisfies the WP:GNG let alone WP:NOTDICT. I see absolutely no reason to redirect this. It won't help readers: no one is going to type in the search bar "Xian (abbreviation)". Its deletion doesn't threaten to break pages: almost every incoming link is an alert about this deletion discussion. The only links from other articles are WXTN (in the infobox whose meaning is adequately conveyed just by the prose), Christogram (as one of other examples of a point adequately conveyed in prose), List of Christian Synonyms (as a see also link), Phonetic complement (as one of many examples), and Christ (title) (in a "see also" hat link alongside Christogram which deals with the subject more extensively). None of these pages will be harmed by the loss of this link. The topic is not notable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither readers nor editors will be substantially helped by maintaining a redirect, so I'm firmly in favor of deletion. At best this should be interwiki'd to wiktionary. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christianity. Although the abbreviation stands for the word Christian, I believe it is usually the adjective sense (of or relating to Christianity) rather than the noun sense (person who follows Christianity) that is abbreviated. A hatnote can direct users to the given name, which appears to be a less common (but extant) use of the abbreviation. As others have suggested, I don't see potential for this to grow much beyond a definition. The title is probably nonetheless useful for encyclopedia users, though. At a minimum, a redirect would be useful for the Xian (disambiguation) page. In principle I would not object to PamD's suggestion of expanding the Etymology section of Christian, but I note an ongoing discussion about moving that page to the plural form. And although it doesn't support my argument, see also Xmas#Other uses of "X(t)" for "Chris(t)-", as another possible place to merge. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Revolution Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable championship from a non-notable organization, created by someone with a non-disclosed WP:COI [17] Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is poor and I'm unable to find anything substantial in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, see WP:RS, WP:PW/RS.LM2000 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Albans Bach Choir[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)

Virtually all coverage appears to be from a local newspaper, the St Albans and Harpenden Review, much of which appears to be routine coverage of concerts (there's also one piece in another local newspaper [18] that is also routine). I wasn't able to find any more coverage online. Does not meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet any of the guidelines at WP:BAND _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep Wikipedia guidance states that all content must be verifiable, hence the citations from the St Albans and Harpenden Review described as "routine coverage of concerts" were included as verification of the the items under Repertoire, and other specific facts. Unfortunately, the other local paper, the Herts Advertiser, doesn't appear to make most archived content available online and so isn't easily cited. To address WP:BAND and hopefully satisfy criteria 6, I've added links for the choir's current and several former Musical Directors as "notable musicians". This is in addition to existing references to several eminent guest conductors. Regarding WP:GNG I would contend that appearances on the BBC (citation added), and in notable musician John Rutter's Royal Albert Hall Christmas Concerts (existing citation) satisfy this. Pleriche (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:INTROTODELETE Advice for Newcomers to Deletion, "deletion is a last resort ... appropriate for articles which cannot be improved". Further evidence of the choir's notability might still be required, but having been in existence for 94 years and benefited from a number of eminent Musical Directors and been conducted by several guest conductors sufficiently eminent to have their own uncontested Wikipedia pages, it is clearly no upstart garage band. Bakazaka has not made a case that the article cannot be improved. Pleriche (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC) (Edited to remove apparent unintentional duplicate vote) Pleriche (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep The choir does the opening concert of the International Organ Festival; there will be references from that body to the choir as well. It did a 9 Lessons and Carols on Sky TV (1989 - the year Sky started, so the first one it broadcast). However, I can find no reference to this; Sky's archives appear not to be public. It was a joint concert with the boys and men of the Abbey Choir, and one organisation has put a recording of the boys onto YouTube, but none (yet) of St ALbans Bach Choir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GillDotElliott (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC) — GillDotElliott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment By its nature, not many of the criteria in WP:BAND can be easily satisfied by a provincial amateur choir but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page. There are a number of other amateur choirs with uncontested Wikipedia pages. In the last few days I've made a number of edits to try and improve the case for the choir's notability, in particular, subsections brought together under "Concerts and other appearances" and a citation through JSTOR of a report of a first performance. Pleriche (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it very suspicious that the User:GillDotElliott (talk • contribs)'s only contribution on Wikipedia is this AfD and also used the same Oppose/Keep vote as the other !vote user. Reeks of sockpuppeting. Will tag some admins who are around here on AfD and the nominator to see if this should be taken action on. @Northamerica1000: @Sandstein: @Rosguill: @Tone: Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very little coverage, and virtually no non-local coverage outside of WP:ROUTINE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Onel5969's comment above, only local coverage has been demonstrated. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five of the choir's 10 music directors over the last 94 years are independently notable. I think this would meet WP:BAND 6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians". I have changed the external links on those music directors' names to links to their Wikipedia articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A string of notable music directors ought to sayisfy the WP:BAND criteria for noteworthy ensemble, even though I'm not sure the criteria is especially suitable for classical music ensembles. Atchom (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Kaufman[edit]

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

Another article whose “notability” relies on “but she was in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show!” Outside of that this article doesn’t present sources at all about any of these other fashion jobs she’s done and another obsolete Top 50. I tried looking for significant coverage before only to find some gossip that she may have dated Jared Leto briefly. Trillfendi (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Adjorlolo[edit]

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

This may as well have been submitted unsourced as what I removed was essentially refspam and otherwise unreliable sources. After searching myself, all that I can find are basic gossip pieces with no depth (to the likes of Adjorlol has found a new lover!!!). Praxidicae (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will repeat here what I wrote in removing the PROD: While there is a great deal of gossip about him, he does appear to have won awards, eg the International Golden Image award in Liberia from President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf [19], and one honouring his 30 years in showbiz from radio station HOT FM in Accra [20]. There may be others - he says he won awards at a Film and Music Festival in Washington DC, and at the BEFFTA Awards in the UK [21] and [22]. Globe Entertainment UK has an interview with him here [23]. I will attempt to improve the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of coverage online does seem to be about this nonsensical affair and gosip around that, but there is some reliable coverage out there on Adjorlolo, especially if you google his name on Google News or on Bing. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some information and references to the article, and removed some puffery. He meets WP:NACTOR, as he has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. He has been nominated for 5 awards at the Ghana Movie Awards and Africa Movie Academy Awards, and won once. I have not had a lot of time to put in to this, and haven't yet found evidence of the US and UK awards mentioned in articles about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an actor who has played significant roles in several major movies. Definitely passes WP:NACTOR.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Lykov[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Seems very promotional in its nature as well, violating WP:PROMO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, the article is promotional, has no decent sources, and the individual does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BurningMUD[edit]

(Find video game sources: "BurningMUD" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books or video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I could find, does not pass WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Ingram McMorran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable old guy. He lived hard, he died... and yeah, that's it. This has only routine coverage mixed in with some especially outlandish puffery. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOPAGE. Can someone verify what a fortune teller incorrectly predicted 100 years ago? Give me a break. Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like a supposed soothsayers age prediction and he had a politician cousin. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the lead inserts that a person's cousin was a member of congress, the subject of the article itself is just plain almost certainly non-notable. Unless we can find contemporary sourcing on what the fortune teller said, this is just plain undocumeted folk lore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the verified oldest men, where he ranks 12th worldwide. — JFG ^talk 09:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to reach the age this man did is far more notable than simply being old. If there isn't yet a "policy that the 'oldest x' is notable" 'create and enforce one immediately!! LE (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Your exuberant demand for such a policy and your edit summary of "Stop assaulting coverage of the AMAZINGLY old!" gives your argument away as weightless WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LE, this article is meant to be about him but it tells us more about his family. What is there to keep once the padded family trivia and (unsourced) fortune teller story are removed? CommanderLinx (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think living more than 100 years is something routine, i is notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not routine, but the sparse coverage of it certainly is. Newshunter12 sums up the policy argument well, I won't repeat it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect. Living past 100 isn't that special. See Acciaroli#Centenarians which says "In 2016, scientists studied the town because of its unusually high number of centenarians, some 300, with 20 percent of those reaching the age of 110." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. This article tells us more about his family than it does about him and there's that ridiculous (and most likely unsourced) story about a fortune teller. There is nothing to say about this man other than he was born, had a family, got old and then died. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost a similar case i saw with articles being created for Titanic survivors that eventually died. I think there's no way they meet notability just because they lived 100+ years and also because they died on titanic. PlotHelpful (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CeNSE[edit]

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

Promotional, not the subject of sustained coverage. Coverage such as [24] is just regurgitating HP press releases, and it appears this never turned into a deployed product. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - While I think this could be revolutionary tech, I don't think it currently warrants an article. Might as well be a redirect, but I also think this should be covered on HP's article, so therefore merge.FelixFLB (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't want to be harsh but this looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE. A search of news sources gives numerous results (e.g., 1 2 3 4). notability is easily demonstrable. Whether or not this turned into a deployed product or not is irrelevant - it's whether or not it ever received "significant coverage", and it clearly did. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One "keep" is by the SPA creator, and the other by a blocked sock. Not a rousing show of support for this article. Sandstein 10:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-Vector[edit]

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

No idea if this is notable or not but it is an essay rife with WP:OR and a massive undeclared COI by it's creator (per the sources.) In fact, all of the sources go back to the same people.

I'll also note the creator has removed the tags. Praxidicae (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the creator of the article and I have removed the tags. The research is not WP:OR, all of the references are to peer-reviewed journals and technical conference papers that also go through a review process before they are accepted and published in the conference proceedings. I have declared the COI; thank you Praxidicae for catching it. The sources go back to the same people, because those people are responsible for developing, testing, and publishing the algorithm. I feel this article is an important contribution to Wikipedia, and I feel there are already other articles that are similar (see for example kd-tree which is an algorithm that solves a similar problem). Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 8 November 2018‎

The problem is there's still a conflict of interest regardless of disclosure as you're connected with the content. Wikipedia discourages making direct edits to pages as such. – The Grid (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article relies only on primary sources. It is unclear whether the journal and the meetings where the sources are published are notable in their field (flight navigation and flight mechanics), but it is clear that they are not notable for the subject of this article (databases), and that their referees are certainly not specialists of the subject. Thus there is nothing suggesting that this is not WP:OR, and that the results would satisfy our notability guidelines. D.Lazard (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @D.Lazard: Please see the comments in the discussion below about the sources that have been added. In addition, the comments discuss how notable the sources are in their field. Please let me know if this is sufficient to constitute changing your delete to a keep. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Whispe ring 15:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whispering: Please see the comments in the discussion below about the sources that have been added. In addition, the comments discuss how notable the sources are in their field. Please let me know if this is sufficient to constitute changing your delete to a keep. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick google search will reveal the significance and credibility of AAS/AIAA conferences. As for the referees, they are notable in the subject of this article (k-vector). For example, Dr. Daniele Mortari, a university professor who has published over 240 articles and whose work has been cited 3441 times according to google scholar, has a long list of publications on this subject, as well as its application to star trackers (see the first citation on the Pyramid Start Tracking algorithm). I have added back in the COI tag after reading The Grid's comment; thank you for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leakec (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mortari is notable, but that doesn't mean everything he's worked on deserves its own article. Each topic has to stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This algorithm has been used in star-tracker algorithms (space instruments used to determine a spacecraft's orientation) including: Pyramid, considered the state-of-the-art, and Super k-ID which won the European Space Agency's (ESA) |First Contact Star Identification Competition. The former can be found in journal articles and in textbooks such as Star Identification published by Springer, and the latter can be found at the link provided (k-vector is even mentioned in the discussion of the teams). Leakec
~~Weak delete~~ per nom. I might be persuaded to reconsider if independent sources with significant discussion of the subject are forthcoming, but as it stands, it's not meeting WP:GNG. SpinningSpark 00:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this qualifies as independent as it contains similar authors, but there is a journal article that was just accepted to IEEE (made it through peer-review but has not been published yet) that uses k-vector to sample points from any probability distribution. This contains significant discussion of the technique, but with a very different application than star-identification. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's not yet published, we are not going to be able to assess it, and it should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. In any case, if it has "similar" authors, that sounds to me like it will not be independent. It can be used as a source when published, but it will not help to establish notability. SpinningSpark 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Currently, that article is not listed as a source. I just mentioned it in case it would help to establish independence in the future. I did add a reference to the ESA competition (mentioned in the comment above) that does mention the k-vector independently (although not in depth). Leakec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.31.142 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found and added some independent sources that discuss the k-vector in depth and do not have any of the same authors; I have added them to the page. Please let me know if this is sufficient to constitute changing your weak delete to a keep. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The PhD thesis has Mortari as a supervisor, so not entirely independent. For the other paper you added, it does not mention k-vector in the title or abstract so it is not possible for me to say at the moment how deeply, if at all, it discusses that topic. I might request the paper, but I'm inclined to wait to see how others respond here. SpinningSpark 14:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Spinningspark: The paper titled "An Autonomous Star Recognition Algorithm with Optimized Database" features five mentions of the k-vector. I am not an astrophysicist but get the impression that it is a fundamental feature of the system that is used in the project, with the aim that "The k-vector technique is used for fast searching of the large-scale angular distance catalogue." I can give you a copy of the PDF as an attachment if you email me with a return address. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Spinningspark: I just added another paper "Brightness Independent 4-Star Matching Algorithm for Lost-in-Space 3-Axis Attitude Acquisition" with independent authors that mentions k-vector approximately 10 times. I am happy to send you a PDF copy if needed. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not concerned by the likely connection between the author of the article and the author of some of the references. There are enough references to meet WP:GNG and whatever the k-vector is it is used in serious projects where it is apparently useful. I thought the topic was notable when I reviewed it at AfC and I still think it is. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears from the added references that this topic may be notable in astronomy, and more specifically in celestial mechanics. But the article is presented (and categorized) as belonging to data base algorithmic, and its content is absolutely not notable in this field. For being acceptable, there are two possible ways for improving the article, both needing a major rewrite. The first method is to keep it as an article of data bases and algorithmic. This would need a comparison (complexity and practical efficiency) with the best algorithms of the literature. IMO these comparisons would be WP:OR, and the resulting article would not satisfy the criteria of notability in algorithmic.

The second method it to make this article an article of astronomy; in this case, it must be categorized in astronomy, and must clearly explain what is specific to astronomy in the method, and why the classical methods of sorting and searching do not work here. Having not read the original paper, I ignore whether such explanations would be WP:OR, or not. I suspect that there is presently no editor who has the competence for such a major rewrite. Therefore WP:TNT seems the best option. D.Lazard (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard: I leave the following comment for your consideration. The k-vector is a data structure used in the k-vector range searching algorithm. This algorithm is used to perform orthogonal range searches in 1-dimensional databases. The primary application of this algorithm has been in solving the star-identification problem in star trackers. The star-identification problem requires multiple orthogonal range searches to be performed in a 1-dimensional database of interstellar angles (angles between stars). The reason this algorithm is used over others is the order of the algorithm (number of calculations to be performed by the algorithm) is lower than any other algorithm for the orthogonal range searching problem. The k-vector is a vector that organizes elements of a database, and is used in the k-vector orthogonal range searching algorithm; that is why it was presented as such. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard: The "K-Vector Range Searching Techniques" reference contains a speed comparison with binary search; probably the most popular and well known searching algorithm. I am happy to request this figure from the authors and add it to the page, but it may take a few days to get this information from them. Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Having now read the Pham, Low & Chen paper, I'm becoming convinced that D.Lazard's objections are valid and the best thing to do with this is to return it to draft space so these can be addressed. The Pham paper is not about k-vector, it is about their own proposal. It gives k-vector not much more than passing mentions in a list of rival algorithms. They do give some comparative search times, but that's about all. The paper does not even verify that k-vector has actually been used for this purpose, the apparent reason for the citation. Having said that, the very fact that other researchers such as Pham are bothering to address it shows that it probably has enough notability to have an article after some remedial work is done. SpinningSpark 20:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spinningspark: How do you propose that the article should be changed if returned to the drafting stage? Leakec —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty much what D.Lazard said. But let's see how this AfD closes first. We can discuss this more when we know where this is going. SpinningSpark 18:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Socialist Party (Australia). czar 04:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Socialists (Victoria)[edit]

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

Tiny, short-lived socialist fraction that was never registered as a party and seems to have ceased activity altogether after its primary figure left the party a year later. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It would take quite a bit for a non-registered Australian political party to be notable, and there's no evidence of it here. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Socialist Party (Australia) from whom they split. Not notable in their own right but does deserve some due weight material. Aoziwe (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Socialist Party (Australia), per Aoziwe's sensible suggestion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Socialist Party (Australia). -- Longhair\^talk 10:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Socialist Party (Australia). Haven't found any sources of activity in recent times. Catiline52 (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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