< 24 November 26 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modjo (Energy supplement)[edit]

Modjo (Energy supplement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 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 redirect to List of characters in mythology novels by Rick Riordan#Grover Underwood. Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Underwood[edit]

Grover Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Biography" of a fictional character, written entirely in-universe and referenced entirely to the books themselves. As always, every character who exists in a work of fiction does not automatically need his or her own standalone article just because the books he's in recursively metaverify their own plots -- the notability test for fictional characters requires real-world context, sourced to critical and cultural analysis of his significance in sources other than his creator's own work. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DatKid Smoove[edit]

DatKid Smoove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. All of the citations are to self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A vanity page by an SPA editor. All sources are user-submitted sites, promotional or insignificant. Additional googling turns up the same. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:16, 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. I have llisted the references on the talk page of thenK-pop article. Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea[edit]

Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It might be theoretically possible to write a real encyclopedia article about this topic, but this is not that article -- this reads more like the introduction to a first-year university essay than like a proper encyclopedia article. The blow it up and start over principle applies here, basically -- even if a good article can be written about the economic impact of K-pop on South Korea, this as written not only isn't that article, it isn't even the seed from which that article could sprout. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:52, 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 redirect to Sarasota County Library System. Anything worth merging can be retrieved from the history. I note that at this point, I am unaware of any consensus that libraries are inherently notable (IMO, they're not). Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Staub Library[edit]

Shannon Staub Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to locate any secondary sources which describe this local library in detail. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries for something about inherent notability of public libraries but was unable to find it. If you could please point me to consensus about this I will withdraw my AfD. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please look up IMO and put a pin in your bogus pomposity. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this personal attack? You could have provided a simple shortcut. For instance, WP:IHN for describing inherent notability. – The Grid (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partly my misunderstanding. I had no idea what "IMO" meant and assumed this editor was asserting that libraries have inherent notability, when in fact this editor was stating it was "in my opinion". "IMO", "CF", "THX"...IDGI. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Magnolia677 for following up with explanation that you didn't understand what Tagishsimon meant. Hmm, i visited here a few times and did not understand your own post, what you meant by the sequence IMO, CF, THX, ...IDGI. Now I finally do, your point is that Tagishsimon used the first three, and then you used the abbreviation for "i don't get it". Ah. Okay, good, and it is a fair point about how we should strive to communicate clearly, for USian and other editors too (just to throw in some jargon that puzzled me in some other discussion, for the heck of it!). Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some local libraries--like some elementary schools--are indeed notable. This isn't one of them. Except for this source, which was cited in the article, there is trivial mention of this library in secondary sources (and no, Friends of Shannon Staub Library isn't a reliable source). Unless there is indeed some inherent notability to local public libraries, as User:Tagishsimon has asserted, then let's respect WP:GNG, lest we have articles about every local public library and their poetry reading hours. I see that Elsie Quirk Public Library, also created by this editor, was proposed for deletion by User:DGG. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given there is a new article on the library system with a section for this one, it is ok by me for this to be closed by "merge" to there, specifically to Sarasota County Library System#Shannon Staub Library. I still think "keep" is ok. "Merge" is preferable to "redirect" as a close because substantial material (including the reference accepted as independent and valid by several here) is being merged / has been merged to there. "Redirect" would be unnecessarily derogatory about the value of the article which was created, in my opinion. —Doncram (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [revised 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks for the link to that. That is a new article created at 23:01 on 25 November 2018 by User:Ksroush01, after this AfD was started. Thank you Ksroush01 for doing that. --Doncram (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I realized it was new as well. Sarasota_County,_Florida#Museums_and_libraries could have sufficed as well. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Public libraries are different from churches, which are private, are allowed to discriminate in certain ways, are not publicly funded, have no public info available in general or from, say, FOIL requests, etc. —Doncram (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is important. I'm gonna write an essay about this. Watch wp:ITSALIBRARY (currently a redlink). --Doncram (talk) 03:45, 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 Fluke Corporation#Pomona Electronics. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona Electronics[edit]

Pomona Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage for this company. A two sentence article. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barrel-Audio Cables Market Overview, Industry Top Manufactures, Market Size, Industry Growth Analysis and Forecast: 2022 - Market Gazette". Market Gazette. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  • "Barrel Audio Connectors Market 2018 Global Industry Sales, Supply, Consumption, Demand, Analysis and Forecasts to 2023 - Chronicle India". Chronicle India. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  • "Top 20 Countries Data of Prototyping Products-Global Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023: Market Status by Countries, Type, Manufacturers and Downstream Industry of North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa – Depositor Money". depositormoney.com. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  • "The Synthesizer". Google Books. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
but I can't honestly argue any of this meets WP:NCORP. Which is a shame, and somewhat surprising, since Pomona is a major company in their field, and has been around for ages. I was buying their stuff in the 1980's, and they're still going strong. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be enough coverage about Pomona Electronics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. This hinges on how much coverage Gloria Ricci Lothrop's book Pomona: A Centennial History provides about Pomona Electronics. The book's index says "ITT Pomona Electronics, 144–145", which indicates that there could be significant coverage. I do not have access to the book. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if it is determined that the book provides significant coverage about Pomona Electronics.

    Cunard (talk) 05:51, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous Poets[edit]

Poisonous Poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage and they only released one mixtape which has no coverage either. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 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. Better to wait about 6 months before taking this to AfD again (that is, if the article hasn't become better sourced by then). Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mizna Waqas[edit]

Mizna Waqas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ACTORBIO states person should "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." to qualify for a standalone WP entry.

Subject does not has had major roles in significant TV series therefore fails to meet ACTORBIO. In the previous AfD, the subject was credited for having played a major role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz - the page itself has been removed because lack of WP:N Saqib (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No disrusptive renomination. You're violating BLP by adding poorly sourced information and citing unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 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) 20:46, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Baines[edit]

Gertrude Baines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable supercentenarian. The writing is blatantly promotional and entirely consists of either longevity cruft or other irrelevant filler material, and other than the Guinness notes is routine coverage. Once stripped of all that we're left with a picture and a couple statistics; clearly WP:NOPAGE, and barely even really enough for a minibio. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Svetikova[edit]

Svetlana Svetikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentul City, Indonesia[edit]

Sentul City, Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertisement article, Sentul City is the name of the private developing project Flix11 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duel (1957 film)[edit]

Duel (1957 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · (1957 film) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennie_Cody[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dennie_Cody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject not notable. Lack of sources and level of details make it read like a promotional piece written by the subject. Cubby2718 (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dice tower[edit]

Dice tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; this may be a novelty, but it doesn't gain significant coverage in reliable sources, unaffiliated with a specific manufacturer. Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower might also be non-notable. I found this article about a roman artifact, which touches on the Roman usage. Modern usage, on the other hand, is simply not documented in any reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 19:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your trying to be nice, and I agree we shouldn't bash deletion nominators all the time. The photo in the article is hugely powerful/convincing/interesting though and on its own it really makes the article a keeper, IMHO, irregardless of other sources. I am not sure if you allude to other photos too, but the one photo really is worth a thousand words. --Doncram (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but I don't see how you would write an encyclopedia article from one without any SYNTH. Very interesting it may be, but sources (via NEXIST if not actual substantial mentions) will be the best argument. The pictures are all on Commons, so that doesn't really affect deletion here. 139.216.48.47 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually an encyclopedia article has been written. And it has 3 nice pictures now. I don't see any problems with it. There are no citations currently, but there are also no controversial assertions which might require sourcing. There is nothing questioned or debated at all, no tags, no issues raised at Talk page. It is fine. I think we should be done here. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 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 Monopoly (game). Anything worth merging (the article creator themselves seems to doubt there is anything) is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chance and Community Chest cards[edit]

Chance and Community Chest cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD, ten years ago, concluded with keeping the article until a merge target could be found. A merge target has not been found in ten years, so this article should just be deleted or redirected now. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gamemaster's screen[edit]

Gamemaster's screen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources. WP:NOTCATALOG. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ángeles Franco-López[edit]

Ángeles Franco-López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a radiologist, referenced only to her own self-published résumé and a directly affiliated YouTube video. As always, every medical professional on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists — and no, even becoming president of a professional organization still isn't a notability freebie in the absence of quality sourcing for it. She needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in sources independent of her own self-created web presence, for an article to become warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 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. Happy to restore to someone's draft space if requested but no editor has yet asked specifically Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik McCue[edit]

Erik McCue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. PROD nomination removed by creator. BlameRuiner (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:16, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Matusch[edit]

Brendon Matusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a teen scientist, whose notability claim of winning a youth science award is not sourced well enough to make him permanently notable yet. The article features just 107 words of content, but is heavily reference bombed to 20 separate sources of which more than half are carpetbombing a single statement -- and the only references that are substantively about him are "local kid does stuff" human interest pieces in his hometown media, while every single extralocal reference is either a primary source that doesn't count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him. As always, every award that exists does not automatically guarantee its winners a free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- student awards are much less "inherently" notable than professional ones. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the subject's science project is related to robotics and neural networking while the creator's username was "Robobug11". Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are other articles about EUCYS winners with few other notable accomplishments, such as Liam McCarthy and John D. O'Callaghan and Abdusalam Abubakar. Also, your assertion that the references in question are "human interest pieces in his hometown media" is false -- counterexamples are [3] and [4]. User:Fftgang (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are notability-assisting sources; they're the corporate blogs of organizations, not notability-supporting media. The media coverage, at least the stuff that's actually about him as opposed to just mentioning his name in the process of being about something or someone else, is exclusively from the Sudbury Star, Northern Life and CBC Northern Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several of the irrelevant sources, and added more substantial content about the project. User:Fftgang (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be true that there are other scientists from this competition with enduring articles, but the existence of one is not a valid predication for the existence of another. They must all independently meet notability guidelines as per WP:BIO. At cursory glance, it appears that the other two articles you've linked are slightly more notable given their individual record-breaking or uniqueness by way of accomplishments, region, or school. As per the guidelines linked above, one such requirement that, if met, demands notability would be that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Being the students who afford notability to their entire school for having multiple winners, winning themselves multiple awards, or acquiring coverage in multiple publications for breaking records, notable backstories, etc. would all be distinct criteria for notability that it appears the subject of the article above does not meet.--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant information has been added to the article: he is the youngest-ever CWSF best project winner. Does this change things at all? User:Greenobscurum 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This doesn't change my vote. Being the youngest ever winner in an award that isn't all that notable in and of itself in the field does not create notability. The notability for the other winners is generated by coverage in third party sources. Even if this is true about the OP, it isn't apparently yet notable for reliable notable third-party independent sources to cover it extensively. At wikipedia, we don't decide notability often on our own. We rely on reliable sources to do it for us.--Shibbolethink ( ) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, simply claiming that somebody was the youngest person ever to accomplish something that isn't inherently notable otherwise does not, in and of itself, make him special. If it could be shown to have garnered him enough nationalized media coverage to get him over WP:GNG, then that might make a difference — but if something isn't a notable achievement that would ordinarily get somebody into Wikipedia on its own, then being the youngest person in the list is not an instant pass to being more special than everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ) 20:37, 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 speedily deleted as A7. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benezzee[edit]

Benezzee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, whose notability claims are referenced entirely to his own self-published social networking presence with not a shred of reliable source media coverage about him shown at all. We have seen many instances of self-promoting aspirants making notability claims about themselves that actually turned out to be false -- so the notability test is not what he says about himself on social networks, but requires independent verification in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 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 redirect to Brockhampton discography. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Truman[edit]

1998 Truman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a song, which basically just states that it exists without suggesting any claim of notability per WP:NSONG. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone article just because it exists -- it still has to have reliably sourced evidence of impact, for example by charting or by winning Song of the Year at the Grammys, before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Premier League 2009–10 Scorers[edit]

Egyptian Premier League 2009–10 Scorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not necessarily needed on Wikipedia. Top goalscorers exists for a reason. Ben5218 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 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) 14:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Premier League 2008–09 Scorers[edit]

Egyptian Premier League 2008–09 Scorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced and not necessarily needed on Wikipedia. Top goalscorers exists for a reason. Ben5218 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 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 Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dersim ethnocide[edit]

Dersim ethnocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Dersim Rebellion. I recently undid a move and this article was created instead of proposing a move discussion. This is covered in the article Dersim_rebellion#Genocide_controversy - creating a new article is not a way around a move discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


*Support per nom. There's also a strong consensus from a 2016 RM for the title "Dersim Rebellion" Talk:Dersim_rebellion#About_the_previous_name_change. Apparently this has been a longstanding problem with the article continuing to be moved despite the consensus on the talk page [5]. Most recently a new editor with 25 edits has tried to move it twice in the last couple of months. The move was reverted both times and now we have the creation of this POV fork and retargeting of the redirects to the new article. (If it were an experienced editor I would say this should go to ANI, but I'm very reluctant to take a new editor to ANI who may not understand yet about respecting an existing consensus, etc.) Seraphim System (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this AfD, please close it. Seraphim System (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 16:15, 27 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) 14:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 Football Transfers That Shocked The World[edit]

20 Football Transfers That Shocked The World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one-off ITV4 broadcast doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage. The Daily Star reference is the TV guide, and the other reference is to a Youtube video removed as a copyvio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 27 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 List of the heaviest people#Robert Butler. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Butler (obesity)[edit]

Robert Butler (obesity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be consensus that simply being very old doesn't make one notable, does a similar principle apply for weighing a lot? References are tabloid-style coverage of his death or fat lists from sources that don't appear reliable. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Byble[edit]


Kofi Byble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Note also that article were moved to draft space in AFC and were declined twice but however i dont know how it got to mainspace. ShunDream (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) WBGconverse 05:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceepeecee, British Columbia[edit]

Ceepeecee, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGEO. A memoir-coverage in a local-publication. Seeking redirect to Vancouver Island. WBGconverse 14:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:47, 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 16:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewbook[edit]

Jewbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG by a mile or so.

Barring Ref 1, which is non-independent (and to an extent, non-reliable) & Ref 2, which is an op-ed; I fail to see significant non-trivial coverage in any RS. WBGconverse 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fred Bauder:->Kindly read the second line of the edit-notice, which is so prominently visible whilst editing this page.WBGconverse 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 27 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. Withdrawing the nomination. Found some references on RTL and Business Insider (both in Netherlands sources). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WakaWaka[edit]

WakaWaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Lots of unreferenced text in the article. One passing mention does not make an article (other 2 are about awards that are not notable on Wikipedia). On BEFORE search, I found: Forbes and HowToGeek articles about their products (not directed to the company so no contribution to GNG or CORP), passing mentions on Gear Junkie and IPSO and short articles about their bankrupcty (routine). The only thing that can be used here is https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurewakawaka-smart-solar-devices-spread-hope-5674359/ Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan New Era Football Club[edit]

Wuhan New Era Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim of participation in Chinese FA Cup. Couldn't find any WP:RS to support it and fails WP:GNG ShunDream (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference is added.User:Luwuyi14:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coinye[edit]

Coinye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:FART. A defunct crypto-currency. Clearly a promotional gimmick even at the time. Coverage is of the lawsuit filed by Kanye West. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 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. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Andiola[edit]

Erika Andiola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG For someone who is referred to as “prominent”, there is a neglible amount of coverage about her to establish an article (don’t get mad at me when I say it’s because of her immigration status that most facts can’t be verified.) Washington Post source is supposed to be about her yet only mentions her a few times and in the headline they only refer to her as staffer; the article is more related to Bernie Sanders. CNN article article also doesn’t even name her in headline and article is more about her mother. There is no independent coverage to establish notability. Trillfendi (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2018 LA Times: she is only mentioned in one sentence; the article is not about her at all. Basically media keep quoting her as an activist but no independent sources expand on that, especially without focusing on her mother or employer. Chicago Tribune article doesn’t even include her name in the headline (for an article that supposed to highlight her) and the author has a personal connection to her. Statesman’s headline calls her DACA recipient, not her name, but the article itself gave a 404 error. Anyone can call her an activist but being a DREAMer is not notability. If it was there would be 3.6 million new articles.Trillfendi (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still, to be honest, these rely on her circumstances rather than actual notability of herself for her career. I have yet to see a source actually independently (like I said before, one of those sources had a personal connection to her) delve into her activism without including her mother in it (she’s not a teenager anymore), politicians she’s worked for, or the Dream Act. Prime examples: "Arizona Immigration Activist Hired to Work for Bernie Sanders Campaign", “. "Illegal immigrant students' hopes dashed with DREAM Act's failure in U.S", "Agents take mother of immigration activist in night home raid", "Immigrants Arrested Near Capitol During DACA Protest", and "Sanders-founded group likely to part with staffer who tweeted about 'illegal immigrants'". HuffPost was the only one to call her by her name. What do we even know about her activism besides being personally affected by DACA? Can someone find sources on that? (Emma González, for example, also went viral but she has significant coverage (not passing mentions or inherited notability) from reliable sources about her work. They even put her name in headlines in articles that are supposed to be about her.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:16, 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) 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 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 keep. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Jurvetson[edit]

Karla Jurvetson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see anything in the article which would indicate notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 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. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Tuki[edit]

Ask Tuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:NOTPROMOTION promotional article for a commercial software. All sources are WP:SPS and owned by parent company IPMG, see its AfD/IPMG and AFD/Shamsaldin that were also maintained by the same sock-farm. Previous PROD was contested by a SOCK. DBigXray 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 11:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:50, 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 keep. The only real argument for deletion here is that at the time of nomination the article was not reliably sourced. This has now been addressed, and the better arguments here are for keeping. Michig (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingūna Butāne[edit]

Ingūna Butāne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I see models with no reliable sources I propose speedy deletion. When that’s contested I propose deletion. Models.com is only reliable for notability when a model is Top 50. That simple. (Note: Yes I looked before and couldn’t find them) Trillfendi (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I typically go to WWD when doing research but I hadn’t seen it.Trillfendi (talk) 00:15, 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 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:32, 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. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Élise Crombez[edit]

Élise Crombez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

“Top 5 Runway Falls” as a source is not notability for an article let alone a modeling career. I could only find one other source on this model. WP:NMODEL

Update: After combing through several pages of only modeling agencies, I only see an interview with the Telegraph where they ask frivolous questions like “what’s your favorite heels” and “most memorable outfit” but not enough info to establish an article about a career. If you find one, present it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could easily show you examples of how newspapers / magazines actually briefly profile models without asking such stupid questions. For example.Trillfendi (talk) 22:01, 27 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 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson & Francis Aviation Company[edit]

Patterson & Francis Aviation Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to sources being passive mentions, as well as no claims of notability. WP:BEFORE did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 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. Sandstein 11:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mandal[edit]

Rahul Mandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. I redirected this article to The Great British Bake Off but it was reverted by its creator twice. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of blocking per WP:THREAT for things that aren't a threat are, in themselves, threats.--v/r - TP 18:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@HardB: Against what policy? And what gives you the authority to lecture other users on what then can and cannot do? You are dangerously close to making a threat there with your comments of IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E states that "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". None of these conditions is met and so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That one is save-able and you should strike it. Wow. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the point has not been grasped, let's spell it out in more detail. The three conditions specified by WP:BLP1E are:
  1. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." That's debatable because a season of Bake Off consists of multiple events – the weekly episodes. And there are now other events such as this engineering event.
  2. "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." The subject is no longer low-profile, being promoted as a correspondent for a national newspaper and being prominent in public events.
  3. "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Each season of Bake Off is a significant spectacle in the UK, attracting much coverage and comment. The role of the winner is obviously substantial and well-documented.
So three conditions and all of them indicate that it is appropriate that we should have an article for the subject. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO1E states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So, that guideline supports keeping the page, not suppressing it. Andrew D. (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a Lee Harvey Oswald type situation. The underlying topic, The Great British Bake Off, is a cooking contest TV show. Lots of game shows on TV, they come and they go, not something that strikes me as "highly significant". The subject of this AfD was a contestant on this show and the winner of a particular season. Again, I don't see anything particularly earth shattering about that. There is a winner every season that the show is on, these winners also come and go. If something particularly unusual happens and a specific contestant has a particularly high impact on the show and transforms it in some significant way, there might be something to talk about. But I don't see that here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 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 keep. Michig (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David North (socialist)[edit]

David North (socialist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting this up together with World Socialist Web Site. Not seeing the notability. Out of 3 references provided in the article, two are from his own website, and in the third one this person is only mentioned in passing. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno. the google thing isn't SIGCOV. I am finding the same reviews of In Defense of Leon Trotsky on JSTOR, and I see the reviews - one each of 2 other books - are these sufficient? the many Davids North in the world makes searching a time-consuming task. Perhaps other editors will find more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example. His 1988 book The Heritage We Defend is linked to Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), which features North's Preface to the thirtieth anniversary edition of The Heritage We Defend. So I ran a Proquest archive search on the book, and came up with only a single item: Tribute to Late Comrade Piyaseeli Wijegunasinghe Daily Mirror; Colombo [Colombo]11 Sep 2010. The item is an announcement by the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) of the death of Comrade Piyaseeli Wijegunasinghe, who "traslated... The Heritage We Defend written by David North, national secretary of the SEP in the US." Having a book translated is a sign of notability, but the source, an SEP press release, is probably not INDEPENDENT, even though it is the SEP in Sri Lanka. I'll revisit this, but it's not as simple as that long list of books makes it appear. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.90.3.0561.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acafdaa26a604396692fb88525164790d "Most ardently, the American writer David North, in a series of online publications and public lectures, collected and published in the volume, In Defense of Leon Trotsky, tries to restore the image of Trotsky as the main opponent of Stalinism and an advocate of a more democratic version of socialism. North argues from an openly partisan perspective and his language is highly combative and, unfortunately, often aggressive... He believes that the authors purposefully discredited Trotsky and falsified his legacy as a revolutionary leader and thinker. North’s accusations, however, are not sufficiently substantiated."
  • These 3 are the only scholarly reviews, indeed, they seem to be the only reviews of this, his most widely reviewed work, and they show that the Stalin-Trotsky is still raging inside a small, walled garden somewhere in cyberspace. What I am not finding is evidence that In Defence of Leon Trotsky or anything else North wrote is widely cited. Searches turn up little beyond an occassional speaking gigs reported in an undergraduate newspaper. Nor is there WP:SIGCOV of North and his career. For all of these reasons, I suggest...
  • The Michigan Daily is an undergraduate newspaper. Undergraduate papers can be reliable on facts, but they don't contribute much if anything towards establishing notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The University of Michigan has more than 45,000 students. It's bigger than most cities in America. The paper is higher quality than most daily papers. It's not Podunk U. Weekly or something. Is your theory that Undergraduate papers don't contribute to notability based on anything other than your preferences? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence that "North's writings have impact on more mainstream discussions" is precisely what I am not seeing. Yes, he has gotten reviews. What I would like to see it that the books are cited by others, whether by scholars, popular writers, or journalists. I can always be persuaded to change mu opinion at AfD. But WP:HEYMANN I need to see sources more persuasive than a handful of book reviews (some of which are harshly dismissive of the value of his work,) coupled with the lack of WP:SIGCOV in sources beyond a couple of undergrad newspapers and sources inside the Walled garden Trotskyite socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The actual notability guideline WP:AUTHOR#3 is easily met. Nothing in the WP:AUTHOR guideline requires scholarly citations, nor does the guideline specify that reviews have to be approving (or that one's work being "well-known" precludes being notoriously disliked). No one is obligated to satisfy you. Bakazaka (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? If you mean that the book with 3 reviews, In Defense of Leon Trotsky, is notable, you could make an argument for merge/redirect this page to that title. Although it has hardly been cited at all in all the years since publication [29] I suggested a merge to his political party, but if you prefer the book, you can propose it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempting due diligence, I looked at the reviews of 2 other North books discussed above, both reviews are positive: [30], and [31] are positive. However, gScholar shows only 4 citations of The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century (almost no impact,) and The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique got only 2 hits in gScholar, one is to this review, and the other is to a bibliography. So far, the book has had impact at all. It has been only 3-4 years since publication, but that is enough time in political and intellectual history for a even a book making a novel or important argument, or presenting new evidence to have multiple book and journal citations. Others of his books have sunk without even y a single review. He may be a notable or impactful author, but we need sources to prove it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is this 2017 Review Essay [33] in the Journal of Historical Sociology (30:86-91) by Charles Thorpe, Associate Professor in Sociology at UCSD. Thorpe devotes two pages to North’s book The Unfinished Twentieth Century, beginning, "It is therefore illuminating to read Radical Intellectuals alongside a book on political and intellectual history by the AmericanTrotskyist David North, who has vigorously defended the life and legacy of Leon Trotsky precisely as the Marxist alternative to Stalin.” Thorpe reviews the arguments of the book and ultimates concludes the review by agreeing with the North's thesis: "The left today would like to leave the Soviet Union behind as a failed project and to believe that its collapse freed them from the debates, concepts, and historical experiences of twentieth‐century Marxism. The Unfinished Twentieth Century makes a powerful case that, to paraphrase Faulkner, these debates and experiences are not dead; they're not even past."
Here is another 2017 book review [34] by Emanuele Saccarelli, Professor of Political Science also at UCSD, published in the journal Critical Sociology (43(4-5):799-802. Saccarelli writes about North's book "The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique," and describes the book favorably as "a valuable contribution to a broad range of important theoretical and political questions located in and around Marxism – with the additional merit of identifying precisely where that boundary lies." Saccarelli also writes what might be useful in content for this bio: "North is the longstanding leader of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), as well as a member of the editorial board of its well-known affiliated online publication, the World Socialist Web Site." There's a lot more in that review but I'll probably add some of it to the bio directly rather than cluttering this page.
Here's one more lengthy treatment of North's book "In Defense of Leon Trotsky" by Bertrand Patenaude, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. The review is published in the American Historical Review, June 2011, pages 900-902. "North is an American Trotskyist whose book collects his review essays of Service's volume and of earlier biographies of Trotsky by Ian Thatcher and Geoffrey Swain. (He does not mention my 2009 book, Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary.) Given North’s Trotskyism, he might reasonably be suspected of hyperbole in his brief against Service. But a careful examination of North’s book shows his criticism of Service to be exactly what Trotsky scholar Baruch Knei-Paz, in a blurb on the back cover, says it is: 'detailed, meticulous, well-argued and devastating.'" In every paragraph through the whole review, Patenaude supports North’s book.
I think given's North's association with the WSWS, his prolific authorship, and the combination of articles on his work in scholarship and scholarly references to his work, this bio should stay. -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of editing to add some third party and reliable sources describing some of North's recent political and academic work. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 05:54, 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. Sandstein 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Kumar (actor)[edit]

Shiv Kumar (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. Regional film director/actor who doesn't passes minimum notability criteria. Godric ki Kothritalk to me 06:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 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. Michig (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Amadeus Dienach[edit]

Paul Amadeus Dienach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficiently sourced to demonstrate notability. I believe that this is a fictional character invented by Papachatzis as a literary device, and don't see any references that even suggest otherwise; the "Daily Star" article is not at all credible and the only other reference is the book claiming to be his notes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 27 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) 09:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings[edit]

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings. Per WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 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. Michig (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings[edit]

List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratingsPer WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 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. Michig (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings[edit]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratingsPer WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 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 per WP:SNOW, all opposes being socks of the creator. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Hardy (singer)[edit]

Cameron Hardy (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. The article previously deleted under Cameron Hardy and the AfC was declined multiple times at Draft:Cameron Hardy. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the Billboard charting anywhere, can you provide an updated pointer? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is he meeting WP:MUSICBIO? Please provide the citations and which numbers he meets there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One !vote per editor, please. --Kinu t/c 19:57, 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. Sandstein 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Momai Tamuli Borbarua[edit]

Momai Tamuli Borbarua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There aren't any sources except for "Ms. Assam Buranji, No.7, No.8", which isn't sufficient. Notability isn't enough to warrant subject his own article. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:59, 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 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Worldview Film Festival[edit]

Christian Worldview Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This festival is unquestionably popular with a subset of Christians, but the article has no substantive reliable independent sources, and Google does not find any for me. A fair bit of PR coverage is regurgitated in the walled garden of Christian sources but these articles lack provable independence - i.e. they are churnalism. Overall the whole thing seems to be like a mirror image of God Awful Movies but without critical analysis. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 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. No indication he has played at a level to satisfy NFOOTY. Whilst there may be non-english language sources out there to satisfy GNG these have not been presented. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Poms[edit]

Rene Poms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the basis that he had managed Wolfsberger AC in the Austrian Bundesliga. This claim is inaccurate. He was the fitness trainer at Wolfsberg, not the manager. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 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. Michig (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ION (IPTV)[edit]

ION (IPTV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; may be promotional Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Design Systems[edit]

Optimus Design Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a corporation has had zero (0) sources for the preceding 13 years.

A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no references to the company except a one-word, passing mention on fanzine called "poltergeist.pl" [37]. Also, its address appears in a wholesaler directory catalog.

The WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG is not established. WP:CORPDEPTH is not demonstrated. Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 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.