< 17 October	19 October >

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 06:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VeChain[edit]

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

Cryptocurrency pump and dump. References are There's only one survivor of this year's cryptocurrency slaughter: VeChain and Bitcoin's latest rival: THIS currency has SOARED in 2018 as cryptos plummet. Has fallen by more than 50% since those articles were published. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - I did a quick WP:BEFORE on Google News - and literally all the sources were the crypto press, mostly press releases and token pumps. Note that the present article is what's left of the original, after the sea of non-RSes were removed. VeChain is a bit of a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This cryptocurrency is becoming more prominent in this space. Various partnerships and its recent mainnet launch supports this. VeChain is not a pump and dump coin and seems to be stabilizing at its 17-19th rank by market capitalization. I believe more should be added about this cryptocurrency replacing the current information, but I do not think it is necessary to delete the page for it. omegshi147 • talk 03:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 15, Vechain Development Plan: "In the whole process of evolving, our technical team got many supports from lotsof great leaders, like the founder of the Ethereum-Vitalik, the founder of Jaxx-Anthony and many others."
Here's what Vitalik has said about VeChain: "I have heard the name and met some of the people in China but know almost nothing about what vechain is. I invested nothing into them and am not an advisor." and "What's VeChain? (exagerrating a bit, but seriously, I've never talked about it)"
Claimed a "partnership" with Oxford University who made VeChain delete their tweets about it. All it turned out to be was a single 1 year blockchain research position "funded by VeChain Foundation".
Discussion of VeChain was banned for one month on the largest cryptocurrency subreddit for vote manipulation earlier this year. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the article content nor the references demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 25 October 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 06:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GSA AUDIO[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing independent of mirror sites and the official website. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which sets out a company's product range, sourced to its own site. The founder was interviewed by a homerecording.it site shortly after starting the firm [1] and there are some product reviews, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on news, google showing meagre fair. Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 25 October 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) 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team[edit]

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

This article contains one (1) source, which is an archived link to a press release from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Much of the text of the article appears to have been copied and pasted from that source. I see little in the way of secondary source data on the topic. This topic is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia page. I have, however, moved some of the information from the article to the Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball page. SunCrow (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created the article way back when I started on Wikipedia ten years ago. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I didn’t have much experience writing/sourcing article. I think the information has some historical value, but buy the argument that it doesn’t warrant a stand alone article. As an aside, I should have been notified as the article creator that this AfD was taking place. That would have been standard courtesy. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN, having "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The team was named in 2002, yet the group is still referenced years later in sources including MyFox8.com, 2018, The Herald Sun, 2017, The Daily Progress, 2017, and Complex, 2013. There is also mention in books (snippets included from Google Books) such as Blue Ribbon College Basketball Forecast. 2002. p. 80 ("The ACC celebrates its 50th anniversary next May, an event being commemorated in all sports through the 2002-03 school year. The basketball team, which was announced in mid-September, included a Hall of Fame lineup of players from ..."), Legends of N.C. State Basketball. 2015. ("Voters for the ACC's 50th anniversary basketball team had a tough task. The league has produced some of the most sensational players from some of the top teams in NCAA history."), Golden glory: the first 50 years of the ACC. 2002. p. 66 ("Heyman, a member ot the ACC's 50th anniversary team, averaged 25.1 points during his career.").—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources from Bagumba. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though I'm not opposed to a redirect (as the merge has been done) to Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball. Seems to be enough coverage for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Still delete.~~Comment I have put all the information from this page onto the Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball page. I am glad someone found some sources; I couldn't. However, even though there are a few sources, I still don't believe a separate Wikipedia page is warranted. SunCrow (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You do not have to reiterate your Delete !vote, it is assumed since you nominated the page. These kinds of rebuttals should be labeled Comment or leave it unlabeled. Rikster2 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, nominator SunCrow should generally not !vote delete again.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid copying I also removed the copying of the full text to Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball. It's against the spirit of an ongoing AfD, not to mention WP:COPYWITHIN was not followed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bagumba. SportingFlyer talk 07:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per Bagumba. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 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. Passes WP:NACTOR which is enough to negate WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Dunn (actor)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant reliable secondary sources and WP:NACTOR for lack of significant roles. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR with multiple roles in multiple notable films, including directing credits, as well as the "prolific...contributions to a field of entertainment" required by criteria #3. Given the era they worked in, it's typical to find a paucity of Google hits and modern news coverage, but that's our sourcing bias, not evidence that the individual is not notable.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, clearly passes WP:NACTOR with many roles in notable films and direction credits. This is pre internet so book sources seem more likely. This is another disruptive nomination from an editor on a deletion spree. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: But the thing is that this was not done on a spree bad faith, and I did my WP:BEFORE with sources I was unable to find. Calling it disruptive is kind of harsh to say just because I disagree with you in terms of whether his roles are notable or not to pass WP:NACTOR (which says multiple significant roles, just being in notable movies does not make you have a notable role). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. nom has misunderstood nactor, a very established film actor in his era. Szzuk (talk) 13:31, 21 October 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. Tone 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shidduch crisis[edit]

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

Delete - Article does not meet WP standard for notability, sources are blogs (not WP:RS). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My WP:BEFORE search here turned up 1,300 sources, including "The ‘Shidduch Crisis’ Has Led to an Orthodox Obsession with Female Beauty" from The Forward, "For now, I’m content to be a single mom. And that confuses people." in The Washington Post, "Ultra-Orthodox Jews Are Panicking Over Their Matchmaking Crisis" in The New Republic and more than a thousand other sources in other publications. It may be real it may be imagined, but it's a never-ending meme in Orthodox Jewish media. I'm curious as to how none of these sources turned up in the nominator's WP:BEFORE search. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yated, Mishpacha, YU Torah are not blogs; they're just not formatted correctly. This is an acute crisis in the Haredi and Hasidic Jewish communities that has been going on for a number of years already. There are more sources to draw on. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic has attracted quite a lot of media coverage, especially within the Orthodox Jewish press. JoelDick (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa DeChant[edit]

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

Basically a resume, no in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Provided citations are mere mentions at best, I couldn't find any additional coverage in internet searches. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. The "Career Highlights" section identifies several exhibits that the subject has curated, but it's unclear as to why any of it is particularly notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt this is an intentionally designed and intensely promotional article whose sources do not discuss DeChant in detail, but rather discuss the companies and projects she has worked on with typically a sentence or less on her... all of which is a case for notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A search finds lots of advertising-type and social media sources promoting her services.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads like a fluffy PR release. Fails with a capital "F" notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. mere WP:PROMO for a non-notable interior designer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BatchSync[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches seem to only show primary sources. Maintenance tag has been in place for 8 years, with no improvements to sourcing. Only secondary sources that mention BatchSync are effectively copies of the article itself (likely reverse copyvio, though I did not confirm this). Waggie (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA-maintained article describing a product's features. My searches are not finding the independent WP:RS coverage needed for notability by WP:PRODUCT / WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be another sneaky spam article. funplussmart (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 18 October 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 06:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plivo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this company was soft-deleted after AfD in January. After requests by WP:SPAs Plivoinc and Abhijit0602, that version was restored to Draft:Plivo in May, but remains there with no further activity. This newly-created article is substantially different from that previous instance, apart from a couple of similar sentences and shared references. Since the previous article went through AfD, a new discussion is appropriate. The article text and references relate mainly to start-up funding and incubator participation, plus a description of their main product features and a brief new product announcement. These still seem insufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to be considered a major player in its niche area, but unless anyone can find something that I couldn't, coverage doesn't seem sufficient to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 18:34, 25 October 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 06:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Connecticut[edit]

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

Not really notable, the only link I can find about it is the sole reference in the page. —JJ B^e ^rs 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article was created as part of an effort to consolidate the areas defined by the Councils of governments in Connecticut. Since this region is defined as such by the Connecticut Government itself, it is most certainly notable. Quite frankly, this nomination for deletion is ridiculous and is only holding back the effort to consolidate these pages. If this page gets deleted, then let's just delete all the pages of Councils of Government while we're at it. Whoever proposed this deletion clearly did not research this topic enough to understand what this page actually is.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

That doesn't make a article notable. I can't find any other sources or coverage to this article. I looked it up on Google and can't find any other sources. Plus there is only one, primary source in the article. —JJ B^e ^rs 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are two, one from the official page and another from the State of Connecticut Website. Connecticut recognizes this entity for what it is.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Just because the state of Connecticut recognizes that the region exists doesn't make it notable in any way. Just like why we don't have articles about the Putnam Sewer System. (Also you added that second ref while I was typing my previous reply) —JJ B^e ^rs 18:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually believe a sewer system for a city of less than 10,000 is comparable to having a page for a region where hundreds of thousands of people live? That's just ridiculous.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

A region which has less coverage than the sewer system of that city. This region is unnotable and redundant. —JJ B^e ^rs 18:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The region itself is extremely notable, there may not be significant coverage regarding the title "Metropolitan Connecticut", but that is only because this title was implemented in 2013.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Then it would be a good idea to redirect to the Bridgeport area article which covers nearly the same area. —JJ B^e ^rs 19:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bridgeport is not a governing body, while Metropolitan CT is. Therefore, there should be two seperate pages to highlight the difference between the two.--AirportExpert (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Delete - In the course of "a comprehensive analysis of the boundaries of logical planning regions in Connecticut", the state's Office of Policy and Management divided the state into regions, one of them being the "Metropolitan" region. However, because the only place on the internet this new region seems to be mentioned is in that comprehensive analysis, published by the Office of Policy and Management, it most certainly appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep User:Magnolia677 and I have very different readings of WP:GEOLAND. As I have learned only recently, GEOLAND presumes that a place with legal status is notable, and it invokes a requirement for the WP:GNG only for places without legal status. Since legal status is already proven by at least one citation provided in the article, Metropolitan Connecticut should be presumed. Of the four criteria of GEOLAND, only one is applicable to this article. Even so, arguably the subject meets the tougher standard GNG. I had never heard of Metropolitan Connecticut (aka MetroCOG) until thirty minutes ago, but this article has significant coverage of the subject:[2]. These articles include mentions of MetroCOG: [3] and [4]. Finally, Connecticut does not have county governments, so an agency at a level between municipal governments and the state would appear to have great importance. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC) edited once by Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of the user just above makes sense to me. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsanfelipe, thank you for finding additional sources. You mentioned this source, which substantiates that the "Metropolitan Council of Governments (MetroCOG)" exists, but asserts that MetroCOG is "a Regional/Metropolitan Planning Organization". As well, this source, which is cited in the article, states that the Connecticut Metropolitan Council of Governments is "an organization guided by a cooperative partnership between the Region's six member municipalities" to "identify a range of projects, funding opportunities and best practices that are strategic to achieving our shared vision for the Region". This certainly makes MetroCOG appear to be a government planning agency of some sort. I'm not sure how these sources support that it is "a geographic region", as the Wikipedia article about it asserts. Just because a planning agency like MetroCOG (or the local sewer system) publishes a map showing it's jurisdictional boundaries, does not make it a geographic entity, per WP:GEOLAND. (Nor should it be added to the infoboxes of every city and town within this planning agencies boundaries, as the article's creator has been doing.) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an argument as to whether it's actually a "legally defined" place. SportingFlyer talk 23:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I largely agree with Magnolia677's interpretation of this, but part of the problem is the title of the article appears to be wrong - I have no comment on whether "MetroCOG" is notable - looks like a lot of primary sources - but "Metropolitan Connecticut" is clearly wrong. SportingFlyer talk 23:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a name change at Talk:Metropolitan Connecticut. I edited the article while adding a secondary source. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started out feeling negatively about MetroCOG because the only thing I knew about it was it starting the (doomed to fail) bike sharing program. However, as I started searching I found that it does have significant activities, including trying for county-designation. I have so far added three different sourced points, and there is more that could be expanded upon... it should now pass wp:N. However I also think that the article does need to be renamed, but that should remain a separate discussion. Markvs88 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Metrocog (I'll vote in the RM); this seems to be a newly created county-equivalent governmental organization in Greater Bridgeport. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [5] - hard to argue that. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 25 October 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 Kalba. Michig (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarif Kalba[edit]

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

This is not a settlement but redirecting to Kalba and removing all the article stuff could work or deleting this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect unless evidence can be provided showing that "Kalba" and "Tarif Kalba" refer to two different entities. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Kalba is, I guess, reasonable enough judging from the coordinates; but as almost always, these John Carter stubs are difficult to source and rescue. Sam Sailor 18:40, 25 October 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. Opinion is divided between keep because the topic is notable, and delete because the topic is overbroad / poorly defined and the content is deficient. I can't give more weight to one or the other side's arguments. Sandstein 06:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction short stories[edit]

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

article is a huge festering mess of OR with inconsistent, poorly defined criteria. How can you tell whether something 'defined a subgenre'? If something was 'the first to introduce a concept', what counts as a concept, and where's the proof that a given story was the first? "Founded an important series" - who says what counts as important? "Topped a major bestseller list" is pointless because short stories aren't sold independently. "Important in some other way" is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. DS (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. AfD is not cleanup. While the article does require improvement, its subject passes WP:LISTN. Science fiction short stories are notable and are frequently discussed as a set. Lowercaserho (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reread WP:LISTN and I strongly disagree. Please explain in further detail. DS (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is basically that we should ignore all the inclusion criteria that are currently stated in the article. I agree that they are a lot of nonsense in multiple ways. However, if we clear all of that away, we're left with the question not of whether this list of science fiction short stories is acceptable, notable, and free from OR, but whether a list of science fiction short stories can be created which meets our criteria.

WP:LISTN suggests that a list topic can be considered notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". So, is "science fiction short stories" something that is discussed as a group or set? I believe so. The Hugo and Nebula awards both have awards for science fiction short stories, for instance, and many science fiction magazines devoted to the genre/medium have existed and continue to exist.

The list needs heavy cleanup and a complete overhall of its selection criteria (I would suggest the simple "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" from WP:CSC but choosing the criteria is outside the scope of AfD), but the currently used criteria are not set in stone and are not enshrined in the article title. My vote is not based in any way on the current state of the article, but about whether I think that a list of science fiction short stories is something we should have on Wikipedia. Lowercaserho (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to neutral. Because, truthfully, my feelings on this are not strong either way, so I am happy to let people who do have strong opinions argue it out. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of notable examples – here's one that I wrote about myself: Black Destroyer. Andrew D. (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there are tons of notable examples. I've written 50+ articles about notable SF/F short stories. The point is not, are there notable short stories. The point is, is this list at all useful. Is it a valid article. The criteria given for being on this list are so vague as to be useless. It'd be like an article for "list of people". DS (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of people is a blue link, not a red link. If we have a lot of articles of a similar sort then this is a good reason to have a list of them to help readers browse and navigate them all – just like indexes and contents pages in a paper reference book. If the numbers are large then we can structure the list with subdivisions and sublists. Per WP:NOTPAPER, numbers and size are not a major problem for us. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "List of people" is a redirect to "list of lists of people", which does not support your argument. DS (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - A list of lists is an obvious way of structuring large lists and there are many such examples. List of people is the root of a large tree of lists of poeple. If our list of short stories should become large then we can follow this well-established model. There is therefore a clear alternative to deletion and the nomination's case is utterly refuted. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, it's kinda off-topic for this discussion (though exactly as off-topic as your own !vote, so I can't imagine anyone complaining), but you probably shouldn't go around "claiming" articles as ones you wrote yourself when your last edited version looked like this: you should not have left it in the mainspace like that, and the only reason it survives today is because others came along after you and improved it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about these stories is that they are short. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the weakest defense of substubs I've ever heard, and since you have yet to respond to this I can only assume it's also your defense for unsourced substubs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First we delete lists of topics which have notable entries and which are discussed as a group when WP:TNT is the best course of action. The first one that springs to mind for me is this one but I know I've seen others. It seems to me like this might be a case where we should heed the advice of WP:DOAL #6, Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office bombs (2000s) is given above as an example of why this should be deleted? but we still have List of biggest box-office bombs that may show the article needs to be rewritten with an adjustment to its inclusion criteria, not a deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason I made my comment a comment rather than a delete !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the very least WP:TNT – Not that passionate about arguing for this but I feel like I should at least copy the rationale in my 2016 PROD: "This list is arbritrary (ambiguous criteria: what is notable, what is science fiction and what is a short story?), full of OR by definition (people just listing what they read), and Category:Science fiction short stories provides the same purpose. It lists a handful of stories out of thousands that could fit its overbroad criteria, which makes is less-than-useless for readers. See talk page for discussions around this dating back to many years." (Disclosure, I was neutrally pinged by DragonflySixtyseven.) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This list is arbritrary (ambiguous criteria: what is notable - see WP:GNG, what is science fiction - see article on science fiction and check with science fiction taskforce, and what is a short story? - see WP definition and check with short story taskforce)", "full of OR by definition (people just listing what they read)" - so rewrite to remove OR, "and Category:Science fiction short stories provides the same purpose." - as i've said in other afds (but havent received a response on this point) - i thought categories are for editors and not for readers?, "It lists a handful of stories out of thousands that could fit its overbroad criteria, which makes is less-than-useless for readers." - yes it does so either turn this into a "list of lists" and/or tighten up the criteria for what is a useful/notable subject for wikireaders. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove the arbitrary criteria. Any short story with a legitimate article belongs on the list. Category:Science fiction short stories has somewhere around 500 entries, so it could be broken down by decade. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, but cut the bullshit~~ Topic is clearly notable and could be the topic of a featured article if we put the work in. @DragonflySixtyseven: While I understand and respect WP:TNT as a rationale for deleting festering OR messes like this, you could not have possibly hoped to get this article deleted through AFD, and I worry this might have an adverse effect as "consensus to keep" can be, has been elsewhere, and might be here, used as an excuse not to clean up articles like this if it involves blanking virtually the entire article in the short term: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture for an example. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete. Huh. I wrote the above as a practicality measure, since I figures having at least one editor saying 'keep, but don't close this discussion as "keep, and definitely don't do anything to improve the article"' would prevent that situation from coming to pass. But as of right now there are three people saying keep and three saying delete, so I guess killing this one with fire is not as unfeasible as I thought. Yeah, it's really fuckin' unfair that a mainstream, well-known topic can get treated properly and in accordance with our content policies while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture was steamrolled by a bunch of editors more interested in fighting "the deletionists" than in improving articles, mostly because the closer didn't know enough about the topic to ignore them, but I won't punch a gift horse in the mouth when it's put on my plate. (And yeah, I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in practice very few AFDs where it's 50-50, let alone 70-30 in favour of keeping, but the keep side have no argument get closed the way they should be.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who say that this could be salvaged by tightening the criteria: a) by all means, please do so instead of just saying WELL IT'S POSSIBLE; b) in that case, we'd have to rename the article to "list of SF short stories that meet criterion X"; c) and purge all the content and start over from scratch; d) at which point, why not just have "list of SF short stories that meet criterion X" as a separate article? DS (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I sympathize. I just think, given how many AFD contributors (and even closers) don't understand WP:NOTCLEANUP and think it applies to articles that include nothing salvageable, that opening an AFD that will obviously be a target of such !votes. There are far fewer frequent AFD contributors like me who will specifically say "Don't simply close as keep, because that will be taken as an endorsement of the present content of the article" than there are editors who will just say "Notable -- keep" and then, if you or Salvidrim! or even I try to remove the crap, will revert and claim that there was "a clear consensus to keep the article" or some other garbage like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the criteria don't need to be tightened; they need to jettisoned completely. Anything less would be artificial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that someone's already done this. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Salvidrim but not Barkeep. No well defined criterion and a list of unimaginable overbroad scope.If you wish to create a list of short stories meeting some definite narrow criterion, do it in a de-novo manner and abiding per LISTN.Lowercaserho's argument (esp. how he derives this from LISTN) looks to be his own noble interpretations and Coolabahapple's argument is IMO, way off-ground. Meeting GNG has been never a ground to create a list-article of near-unbounded number of elements and yeah, categories are for the aid of readers too.And, umm..... Hijiri88, shall the scope of the article and it's criterion be not radically redefined, it will be a wiki-heavenly privilege to come across that editor who will have the capacity to generate a FL out of this:-) ∯WBG^converse 10:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN ie. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" (oh look! wp:gng is above:)), numerous books discuss/group sf short stories eg. The Norton Book of Science Fiction, The Starlit Corridor, Science Fiction By Gaslight, Rationalizing Genius, The World Treasury of Science Fiction, A Science Fiction Omnibus. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.There are ample books produced with a generalized title of something around A collection of short stories.So, we ought to create a List of Short Stories?∯WBG^converse 12:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yep, as for "List of Short Stories", its been tried before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short stories, so we may wish to start small(er) say List of English Short Stories who are, after all, the best at this type:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Some but far from all science fiction stories are individually notable. For the ones thatare, a list is appropriate, just as for all other types of creative works. If there are ones on the list that are not notable in the sense of having Wp articles, theyshould either be removed or an acceptable article thats hows notability written. This is the same practice we do with everything else of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN ie. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" Needs clean up, but AfD is not cleanup. Obviously, no compliance with WP:Before, which does apply. This article can and should be improved, not deleted.

I do think it would help if there was more than a bare listing. Some actual discussion of why these are notable, some criteria, and some sources that say they are notable. Cf. Trial film, which i wrote. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Hugo Award for Best Short Story#Winners and nominees would be a good list article to emulate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the Nebula is a big award for this genre, too – see Nebula Award for Best Short Story, which is a featured list. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should probably be retitled as "List of notable science fiction short stories." Otherwise it could be just an omnibus trash can; and then it would be useless to our dear readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, per WP:LISTNAME. List inclusion criteria should be written in the lead, not the title, WP:SALLEAD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have on Friday and then today added the 739 unique entries that were present in Science fiction short stories category and its children as a proxy for notable short science fiction story. I am sure some things were miscategorized and so this list will be need editing (plus some entries no doubt lack one of those categorizations). Hopefully this provides a basis for those editors who wish to improve this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tables can be hard work but structured information like the author is good to have. I've tweaked the format of the table to make it sortable and recommend use of the visual editor for entry of individual cells. Andrew D. (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN. Criteria is inconsistent and overbroad. I have no problem with keeping a better defined list, or turning this into a list of lists. The information may be best categorised. SportingFlyer talk 02:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A total overlap with Category:Science fiction short stories. Non-notable short stories would best be dealt with by ((R from short story)) redirects categorised into that category and pointing to an article (author or collection) which mentions them. Other categories could also be added; that is commonplace with ((R from song)) and the like, and helps navigation. Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is our established practice to have both a list and a category when possible. Each has their advantage.The category is automatically populated, and provides for inclusion in the hierarchy of categories. The list lets people better find what they want by providing some minimal information (usually, date and author), in case they do not remember the title or are not entirely specific. The only reason for not making both is in those special cases where thee may be too few items for a category of their own, or a list is being used for some specific qualitative way. Possiblyy some categories may be too large to make a practical list, but if this uses a proper criterion, it will not apply there. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure that sources can be found to demonstrate the notability of the concept of science fiction short stories, but I don't think a list format is useful for this information. This list is very long already and would be much longer if complete, which makes me think that a category would be more effective. If filled out this list would give year, author and place of publication, all of which would make suitable subcategories if there's enough entries. The bibliography of individual authors should also list short stories they've published. Hut 8.5 21:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Sprawling list with inconsistently applied inclusion criteria and minimal navigational utility. There are times when lists and categories should duplicate one another; this is not one of those times. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (mainly per "delete" arguments): It's completely bizarre that this is even up for deletion. This list not only passes WP:LISTN but also seems to pass the much higher standard WP:CSC with flying colors. But the real kicker is that there appears to be a unanimous consensus among the "delete" !voters here that the category should be retained regardless, meaning that the classification is not subjective after all. Per WP:NOTDUPE, lists and categories are complementary, and only in relatively exceptional cases should one be deleted without the other. No argument for this being a special case has been advanced, and the reasoning behind the "delete" arguments actually supports that. Modernponderer (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs work to make it more useful to the reader, but I don't see a problem with having this as a list topic. --Michig (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering? DS (talk) 00:51, 26 October 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) 18:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Daw'[edit]

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

Coordinates point to near a mosque. Absolutely non-notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it could be verified, it's a hill. The article does not even try to describe it as a hill with some sort of notability. Just a hill. Natureium (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another John Carter creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Hasan[edit]

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

Non-notable area. I think the best thing to do is to redirect this back to Beni Ḥassān like it was in 2008. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable enough to have been in the 1987 Gazetteer. There's a wider disambiguation problem here that I'm setting out to solve at Bani Hasan (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As we've now seen with hundreds of UAE AfDs, the 1987 Gazetteer is NOT a reliable source. I would even remove the disambiguation link as it fails WP:V. SportingFlyer talk 22:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough if the gazetteer is not RS. If this page is deleted then would the closer please move the new Bani Hasan (disambiguation) page to the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and leave a categorized ((R to disambiguation page)) behind. Sam Sailor 18:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. Not a new article, so plenty of time for proper references to have been found. Personally, couldn't find one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not verifiable through reliable sources. Sam Sailor 18:08, 25 October 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Halyo[edit]

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

This article is self promotion. They are not notable in the subfield, and are no longer employed in the field. This person was not the first female faculty in physics at Princeton, at least Lisa Randell was there in the 90s, not sure about others before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.199.251.1 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Created from a PROD for the IP ~ GB fan 15:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She seems to have dropped out of academia and out of public view soon after this article was written, without having left a significant enough publication record to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to her CV, her roles at Princeton went from Asst Prof to Researcher Staff to her current position as a Consultant at LHC. The "feature article" referred to at the end of the LHC section was a dead link, which is now available as a google doc here. Unfortunately, she wrote it, so it's not a secondary source. Other sources are either primary sources, dead links, no longer refer to her at all, or are articles which she co-wrote. Fails to meet either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She did, however, write Nature's obit for Martin Perl. Even with her other writings, though, I do not believe she would qualify under WP:AUTHOR. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't meet the GNG and I don't see that WP:NPROF is met. I couldn't find a source for the claim she was "the first female faculty member of the Princeton University Experimental High Energy Particle Physics Group" and even if true that seems like a small niche. Her early career award in 2010 was one of 14 awarded that year by the DOE in the field of "High Energy Physics". Nice, but not enough to show notability on its own.Sandals1 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 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) 18:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Marines 1989[edit]

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

Listcruft. If this article is permissible, then there surely should be one for every year. Which, imo, is absurd. TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I partially agree although there already is a well sourced entry Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989. It appears the user J-Man11 seems to be creating Wikipedia entries that already exist with little verification.Sammartinlai (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inferior duplicate of the referenced list on the Royal Marines article. Kges1901 (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to redundancy with the RM article. It is believed the reason 1989 has been chosen is that was the last year of the Cold War, and orders of battle for that year reflect the strength of various forces at that point, after which all militaries drew down considerably. However, the complete lack of communication by the list creator added to the lack of sourcing makes it very hard to verify the contents of these lists. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above. Gavbadger (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary duplicate GirthSummit _(blether) 11:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A10: any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 21 October 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) 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Research Council grants awarded to Austrian institutions[edit]

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

This was unaccountably kept back in 2010. WP is not a directory. About half of them are for beginning researchers. Should we include everyone who gets a NSF research grant also. We normally do not even mention research grants in the articles about scientists--that a notable scientist would have received several from somewhere is routine DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ROUTINE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:V: dearth of in-depth or persistent coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources (in literature or news); as the references indicate, the only availble sourcing is primary and self-published AKA unreliable. By which token it also fails WP:LISTN, as such a lack of coverage suggests that the members of this list have not been discussed as a collective in the context of the subject of the list. ——SerialNumber54129 14:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All grants are presumed "highly competitive" until proved otherwise, there being more people wanting money than having it. Absent any evidence that an ERC grant is more prestigious than one from the NSF, NIH, ONR, etc., this list is at most a puff piece. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTLINKFARM WP:NOTIINFO. Just not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the right arguments already put forth. I am happy to see that we do not have other lists in the format List of European Research Council grants awarded to <country>an institutions. Sam Sailor 17:43, 25 October 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) 18:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Petela[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Only thing I can find is a one bit mention on the Daily Mail website[6] (which cannot be used as we no longer accept DM as a cite), Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a former child actress with no recent activity. Deb (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References for Laura Petela can be found on IMDB but I am not sure how to add references https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0676192/ and also on some Enid Blyton sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13ten (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is not a reliable source. Sam Sailor 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 17:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book citation added mentioning her on the cast list on The Famous Five, but that is about all I can find. Child actor who had minor roles, does not merit inclusion under the subject specific notability guideline NACTOR/NACTRESS or meets BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 17:33, 25 October 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) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kawit shooting[edit]

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

WP:NCRIME. Fails WP:LASTING. No claim to notability other than "shock value". No national or even city/province-wide implication or effect on legislation. not a suspected terrorist attack and the victims are private citizens. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We normally keep these types of articles, a heinous crime such as this does tend to have a lasting effect on communities and the location it happened in. The scale of such a crime is picked up by world media and the citations point to that fact. Thus passing WP:GNG So I am in complete disagreement with the rationale for deletion. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good refs, heinous crime that recieved plenty of attention. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' A mass murder with adequate sourcing is definitely notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the sources quiet good and detailed. LASTING is a guideline and where event is widely covered in reliable sources it indeed shows it's notable.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Towers fire[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A building fire with one dead, while tragic, is an everyday occurrence. It makes the news now, and is then in nearly all cases ignored again in reliable sources. The time to make this article is when it turns out to have lasting notability after all, not now. Fram (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Harrow Court fire, I think the two fires are linked via the town of Stevenage and the same council, with similar issues. I am not why you say NOTNEWS, when in essence it is news! I think if there is a merge the Harrow Court fire should be renamed to reference the two incidents. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "in essence it is news": perhaps you should read WP:NOTNEWS then. None of the three news sources about this fire (in the article) even make the connection with the other fire of 12 years ago (nor with the Grenfell tower fire, which is also mentioned in the lead of our article), so a merge would basically be a WP:SYNTH / WP:COATRACK violation. Fram (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While obviously a tragic event, I don't see anything that makes it exceptionally notable. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently significant to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 25 October 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) 07:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Griffiths[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:FOOTYN and GNG BlameRuiner (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations seem WP:ROUTINE, thus fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.fails independant reliable sources to prove WP:FOOTY AND WP:GNG. Vinodbasker (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GiantSnowman. Finnegas (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a WP:FPL, so thus fails WP:NFOOTY, and also fails WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Noel B. Reynolds. Tone 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney S. Reynolds[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The Deseret Morning News 2005 Church Almanac source in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining sources in the article are primary, which are not usable to establish notability, and WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing fleeting passing mentions and name checks, which also do not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to Noel B. Reynolds. Reason is, they have jointly held 2 separate significant positions together, both of which can be sourced to independent coverage: The gentle door greeter introduces herself and a fellow wearing a white short-sleeve dress shirt, tie, and navy blue slacks. 'I'm Sister Sydney Reynolds,' she says. 'This is my husband, President Reynolds.' The Reynoldses, from Provo, Utah, arrived in Plantation in July 2005 after accepting a three-year assignment to watch over the missionaries operating in South Florida. The LDS church does not employ official clergy; instead it uses a rigid corporate-style hierarchy that begins with the church headquarters in Salt Lake City and trickles down to every branch and ward in the congregation. The hierarchy is headed by the prophet and church president, Gordon B. Hinckley; and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Mormons believe God ordains the Prophets and Apostles to issue spiritual messages and directives to the congregation. Sometime in December 2004, Noel Reynolds remembers, he and his wife received a call from Hinckley to serve as Fort Lauderdale mission caretakers. 'It's not a career goal,' he says. 'But we are very glad to do it. We receive no salary, but the church provides the home we live in.' The 64-year-old Noel is on leave as a political and legal philosophy professor at Brigham Young University, where he also teaches Mormon Scripture classes." (Sidewalk Salvation; Alvarado, Francisco. Miami New Times; Miami, Fla. [Miami, Fla]21 June 2006:). In addition, she held a significant public position as a leader of the Primary (LDS Church). Nom, User:Northamerica1000, if that seems reasonable to you, I will undertake to upgrade the target page; which needs it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per E. M. Gregory's suggestion. I have begun to seek to upgrade the article on Noel B. Reynolds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Noel B. Reynolds per E. M. looks like a good way to preserve material. Sam Sailor 17:22, 25 October 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 consensus was that Barry Johnston fails WP:NFOOTBALL and passes the WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Johnston (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG. Also very poorly written. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources enough to pass WP:GNG are easily found, eg here, here or here. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG per sources found by @Lowercaserho:. Giant Snowman 11:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article doesn't look great but the sources found by Lowercaserho suggests that Johnston should be passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:NFOOTY but passes WP:GNG after HEY by Lowercaserho.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Has independant reliable sources that could prove that it qualifieS WP:GNG but is doubtful about WP:NFOOTY,but still should be kept.
Delete Fails WP:GNG "Sellic fan gets interviewed before playing his heroes" is a regular thing in the media whenever a diddy team draws the Old Firm. He got lucky the press picked him and not one of 95% of his team mates. Only the second link Lowercaseho provided is about him. The others are mostly about Cliftonville. Dougal18 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could use a few more sources, but clearly passes WP:GNG even if WP:NFOOTY isn't satisfied. While WP:GNG is satisfied and the following is just a rant, I think this is also a perfect example of a player in a non-fully professional league that deserves to be kept: over 300 appearances over 10 years in his country's top flight is a heck of a lot more notable than the "played three games for a fully pro team one year out of his career" we often see popping up. SportingFlyer talk 10:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - certainly fails WP:NFOOTY; however, I think the article manages to get through on WP:GNG. Certainly could use a heap of work to clean up and reformat the text, though. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus (1998 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No evidence of non notable. Needs more sources. Alex-h (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can provide sources showing evidence of notability, that rationale is unconvincing. So far, all I was able to find through a Google/News/Books search was movie databases (like IMDB) and mirror sites and most of the other results have nothing to do with the Japanese film. If you could actually provide reliable sources, that would be more helpful than just asserting notability without showing proof of it. You can't argue keep when you don't address the reason for the nomination/notability issues.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like this article went wrong in 2010, when an IP editor did this: [7], apparently copying text from an IMDb prank. Clean it up with WP:TNT and no prejudice against recreation if someone can write an article showing notability for the actual movie. Bakazaka (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone Googling for sources should search "Octopus 1998 Japanese film" as just searching "Octopus 1998 film" will mostly show results about other films called Octopus.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find English language source on this film that confirm it is notable. Director Gou Suzuki has never had an article here, and I doubt he has one on jp.wiki. Sam Sailor 17:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muzammil Desai[edit]

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

Does not satisfy biographical notability or general notability. An unsourced biography of a living person (and so could be tagged as WP:BLPPROD). Google search shows plenty of vanity hits, but no independent coverage by reliable sources and therefore no notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 17:28, 21 October 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 Hanna Jaff. Tone 18:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaff Foundation[edit]

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

local organization with no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be six independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hanna Jaff because the sources disucss her in detail, and do not discuss the foundation in detail: WP:INHERITORG.--Pontificalibus 12:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanna Jaff as a categorized ((R to related topic)), title is a valid search term. Sam Sailor 17:02, 25 October 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. Tone 18:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about Writing[edit]

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

no notability in significant journals Wqwt (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is firmly based on WP:RS, which includes a "significant journal" (on the topic area, of course). In addition, a simple search yields hundreds of more RS: scholar, books, news. I am wondering what is this article doing in AfD? Rather than deleting, we should want to improve it-- although compared to many others that land in this place, this article is above average. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 02:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the mentions in google news and google books are using the topic in a general sense. In fact I think most mentions in google scholar aren't about what this article is about. Wqwt (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wqwt: The article germinated out of a course project with a narrow focus on academic and college writing, and has received little help since. Its limitations should not be a cause for deletion. The article centers around the individuals (Elizabeth Wardle and Douglas Downs) who have developed that specific pedagogical approach (theory or method). The sources include various renowned journals, but most are primary sources. In general, the references are outdated. You would find new and secondary RS in the links I provided. For example, Gordon Johnson, Bommarito & Chappelow; and Méndez. There are dissertations (De Piero) and books, like Lockhard's that seeks to bring this approach to teaching in prisons. But even in academic writing, Writing about Writing is more than Wardle and Downs' "method or theory of teaching composition," as this book shows. Outside of academic writing, it is also a trendy form of literature that transcends the classroom. Its narrow focus may have been what sparked your concern. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 12:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Caballero1967. James500 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 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) 12:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Dunic[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized BLP of a writer, musician and visual artist, whose claims of notability for all three of those things are resting on primary sources rather than reliable or independent ones. As always, everybody who exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article -- the presence of media coverage about the subject, not merely the statements that she did stuff, is how an article becomes earned. Bearcat (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BAND. A plethora of sources alone, whether primary or otherwise, does not necessarily add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few brief mentions in reliable sources, but no substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.fails WP:GNG as it does not contain indeoendant reliable sources to prove its notability. Vinodbasker (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Leanne Dunic who owns a women's fashion boutique in Vancouver who gets quite a lot of press. "Our" Leanne doesn't; fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 18 October 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 06:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hayes (lawyer)[edit]

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

The notability of Peter Hayes rests on the allegation that he, a leading Australian lawyer, died of a drug overdose in the company of prostitutes. Since his death in 2007, there appear to have been no reports of the coronial inquest or the police investigations that the article mentions. There has been no confirmation of the allegation. The story has died. In any case, the allegation is not notable by Wikipedia standards. It is salacious gossip, whether true or not. The article implies that the women who were with Hayes committed a crime, but there is no evidence that they have been convicted of anything. With regard to Hayes, a lot of people use illegal drugs and hire prostitutes. There is really no point in this article, except as a memory of a scandal a decade ago. Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to sum up this long nomination, the subject fails WP:NBIO due to their notability being from only one event. WP:TABLOID applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep This one is a bit tricky. Yes the subject did receive very significant one off coverage due to the alleged nature of their death, but the reason they received that coverage was because they were a very high profile legal professional over a period of time, which can be variously, even if routinely, sourced. Anyone else (sadly perhaps) might have received nothing or a few very small one off passing mentions upon such a death. I suggest that the combination of their professional profile and the nature of their death satisfies GNG with sufficient WP:NEXIST when combined. The article, like many others, could do with some work, but unless fatally flawed, is not grounds for deletion Aoziwe (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the last comment, I don't think that everyone who dies of a drug overdose should have an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I suggest though the combination of circumstances makes this person notable. Aoziwe (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read Peter Hayes QC as practicing lawyer that is the highest level attainable his links to high profile cases just reinforces notability, WP:UNDUE is an issue in focusing on the events around his passing and more effort could be made to improve information on case/court work there again you dont get to QC by being a ambulance chaser, divorce lawyer or writing wills. Gnan garra 14:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a thousand QCs or "Senior Counsels" in Australia. Every one does not need an article, particularly if there is little information available.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Queen's Counsel, he satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The honour is well known, and it is significant because it indicates "pre-eminence in the profession" (Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, Cmnd 7648, October 1979, volume 1, para 33.69 at page 466). The arguments for deletion above are utter nonsense from start to finish. James500 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think appointment as a QC is an "award or honour" in terms of WP:ANYBIO. It is not like a Victoria Cross, Oscar, or Nobel Prize, where the recipient is recognised for a particular achievement that is notable in itself. You could write an article simply based on the fact that someone won a VC etc, but I don't think the bare fact of being appointed a QC. While it shows the person is a pre-eminent barrister, it's not notable in itself. If that criteria did apply, it would mean that people nominated several times to be QC are notable, including those who nominate themselves! That report (which by the way is decades old and from another country) makes it clear that QC is a professional appointment. While much of the traditional role is obsolete, taking silk is still seen as a career advancement, with the QC being distinguished from the junior barrister. A career advancement is not an "award or honour" notable in this context. WP:JUDGE seems to be the closest to a notability criteria for the legal profession. This states that judicial officers on the local level do not have guaranteed notability. This suggests that no lawyer below the rank of judge has guaranteed notability. This argument was also discussed a few days ago. If true, it goes beyond this article. If all QCs are notable, then this should be documented. And there should be a corresponding provision for jurisdictions, like the USA, that don't have QCs.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being appointed Queen's Counsel is certainly an honour. It is even possible for a non-practitioner (such as a professor) to be appointed honoris causa. In any event, there is no value in semantic hair-splitting about the distinction between honours and appointments. What matters is that QC is well known and significant honour because it indicates pre-eminence. It is primarily awarded when an advocate attains the highest standard of court advocacy (so it is awarded for a particular achievement that is notable in of itself), and indicates that the QCs so honoured are the top people in their field and the best at what they do. (The Nobel Prize is not awarded for a particular achievement, it is awarded for lifetime 'achievement'). A person cannot be "nominated" to be a QC, so that is not an issue. The section of BIO, known as JUDGE and POLITICIAN, that deals with politicians and judges, is about the holders of political office, and is primarily aimed at elected judges in the USA, who are certainly politicians (and have to persuade the public to vote for them). It has nothing to do with lawyers who are not politicians just because they are lawyers. In many countries, such as Germany and France, judges are not part of the legal profession, but form a completely separate profession. Even in England, some judges (lay magistrates) are not members of the legal profession (or any other profession) and have no legal qualifications. The fact that the USA does not have QCs is irrelevant. There is nothing in ANYBIO that suggests that awards have to be international. We cannot ignore notable honours conferred by national honour systems just because one country doesn't have them. All that means is that we will have to find alternative means for assessing the notability of American lawyers. This is certainly possible. As far as the relevant Commonwealth countries are concerned, the honour of QC is the only practical means of identifying by honours and awards those lawyers who are notable for their practice as lawyers in the courts (and not for being judges or law professors or whatever). The honour of QC is quite simply the only option (there are no other awards or honours now that can be used), so it has to be used for this purpose. QCs are automatically included in certain biographical dictionaries of notable people, which proves that professional biographers consider QCs to be ipso facto notable. James500 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some jurisdictions, there are nominations for QCs.[8] In Victoria, Australia, barristers apply to be QCs (or Senior Counsels).[9] There are many things which are "honours" and which indicate "pre-eminence", but as I said I don't think a QC is an "award or honour" in terms of ANYBIO.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Application is not nomination. QC is manifestly an honour. James500 (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an "honour", but not an "award or honour" in terms of the criteria. It is essentially a career qualification, even if it is given in an "honorary" way to a few people outside the legal profession. It is not similar to the awards and honours envisaged in the criteria. A Nobel Prize might be an award for lifetime achievement, but it is awarded in a particular field, for particular achievements. You can win many Oscars, but when you are appointed a QC in a particular jurisdiction, that's it. You are not going to be "awarded" it again the next year.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a career qualification. It is entirely similar to the other awards and honours envisaged by the criteria. It is awarded in a particular field for particular achievements (namely the highest standard of court advocacy). There is no reason why ANYBIO should be confined to awards and honours that can only be given once. We have always accepted that a knighthood satisfies ANYBIO, and that can only be given once. James500 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to a knighthood, in that it is archaic and no longer means what it used to mean. However, a knighthood is now an "honour" and recipients are knighted for contributions to business, the arts etc. It is no longer really an appointment, and there is no requirement for fighting. However, a QC is expected to act as one of the elite of the legal profession. It is absolutely a matter of career advancement and professional attainment. A knighthood is not (any more).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 25 October 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 Global Greens. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 09:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas[edit]

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

Fails ORG. Just because it is part of a notable organization and contains notable entities does not mean that it is notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below. Was: ~~Keep~~, although perhaps a careful "Merge" could be accomplished. At first glance this looks like it could be merged into List of green parties It has substantial content that could help in organizing the list-article's coverage. But there are other organizations of green parties that have separate articles (or list-articles) too (including Global Greens, the European Green Party, the Nordic Green Left Alliance) and maybe it is not so easy to merge them all in. It could be too cumbersome, in which case this is a reasonable split-out from the list-article or from the Green party article. It is NOT bad info which must be expunged. It could be developed with more information like the other ones have. Just because a list-article is shortish does not mean we need to have an AFD about it. Tag for development, perhaps, or post to the Talk pages of the related articles calling for some editors actually interested in the topic to consider a merger. --Doncram (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global Greens; part of that organization and no independent coverage of this federation. I see no content to merge; the list of members is already on the suggested target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can someone please provide specific referencing that this entity is in fact "part of" the Global Greens organization? This reduces to a discussion of whether "Keep" or "merge/redirect" is appropriate, as opposed to any idea of "delete" as an outcome. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is [10] sufficient referencing? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay sure, changing !vote to "Redirect" above. The name per that source, Federación de Partidos Verdes de las Americas should also redirect. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 25 October 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. Szzuk's assessment of the sources is persuasive and unrebutted. Sandstein 10:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Mouroukis[edit]

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources on him or his films. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources books coverage as already referenced in the article, has produced a number of award winning short films, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I translated the refs and 3 of them link to "add to cart buy me", the fourth and last ref is a humdrum Q&A. Google does show he is an author but google isn't showing enough sigcov and I can only deem this an advert. If this ends keep/no consensus those refs need deleting. Szzuk (talk) 19:45, 25 October 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. Tone 18:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Family Systems Model[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Besides the un-encyclopedic tone, the article references books that aren't reliable sources and the primary source isn't peer-reviewed. So delete or draftify. Wqwt (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletionist practice is needlessly cruel, drastic, and inefficient. There is no reason for deletion to be at stake for improvement of an article. This is not a valid way to locate motivated enthusuasts. — Smuckola (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Like it or not, this is a notable subject. A duly diligent literature search shows that there are far more sources that discuss the subject than are cited in the current version of the article. For example, there is a whole chapter on it (chapter 17) in: Kolk, Bessel A. (2014). The body keeps the score: brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. New York: Viking Press. ISBN 9780670785933. OCLC 861478952. There are also 20 peer-reviewed articles on the subject in PsycINFO. Biogeographist (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep.Has independant reliable sources that are enough to qualify for WP:GNG and the article can further be improved to meet the complete demand of the topic.Vinodbasker (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ninety Seconds[edit]

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

Article is written by the director/producer User:Tech2012 [11] who seems to use Wikipedia as their primary source of marketing. Only independent sources here are capsule reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and is probably eligible for WP:G11 given the WP:PUFFERY. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Geeks of Doom is generally seen as a reliable source for independent and/or horror film reviews, so I'm counting that. The Irish Examiner also reviewed the film, which is good. The Donegal sources are a bit shaky since it's local coverage and depreciated, but I think that there's just enough for a weak keep here. To be honest, this is a picture perfect example of why editing with a conflict of interest is so frowned upon, as there was so much puffery and promotion in the article that it drowned out the usable sources that could show even a tenuous notability. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:NFILM only allows for non-capsule reviews that are by nationally known critics. That's why I excluded these sources as demonstrating notability. The Irish Examiner article isn't really a review, and it isn't even clear who the author of the Geeks of Doom review is. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 10:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Reader of the Pack, the sources may not count as national reviews for WP:NFILM but can be considered for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:GNG states, GNG doesn't guarantee notability. There wouldn't be any point to having WP:NFILM if all you need to do is pass WP:GNG, since WP:NFILM is much more specific and rigorous than GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG overrides WP:NFILM which was originally intended as a guide as to whether the film was very likely to be notable but not a stipulation of notability in and of itself, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In-depth coverage in the Donegal papers, Geeks of Doom and the national Irish Examiner indicate the passing of WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Dvoretskaya[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. I could only find a few softball interviews with Natalia Dvoretskaya and profiles on film sites in Russian. Roles do not appear to be notable, nor are they in particularly notable films. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. --RTY9099 (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR easily due to having no multiple significant roles to be notable by that regard. She also fails WP:GNG by having no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyari maa (2017 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing in the article or source to suggest this film comes anywhere near meeting the notability criteria so WP:ATD doesn't apply. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codie award[edit]

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

Non-notable award by non-notable entity SIIA. Similar to Jesse H. Neal Award AfD. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 05:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the awarding body is non-notable, its awards are surely less so. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not reveal enough in-depth, non-promotional coverage to show it passes wp:gng. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep, which should not preclude a subsequent MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 01:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loamshire Regiment[edit]

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

undersourced, a WP:BEFORE search turns up little to no reliable results. Could be redirected to [[List of fictional regiments of the British Army ]], but I can hardly find an indication its real, much less that it meets WP:GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fictional regiments of the British Army. It's definitely been used to refer to several fictional regiments, but the name itself is not notable enough to warrant its own article.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It clearly is in use as a placeholder name in British Army manuals etc, just as the article claims [12][13][14]. Use of it as an example to explain the structure of the British Army [15][16]. Use in comedy or satire [17][18][19]. Use in fiction [20][21], and this one means that either the Loamshires did once exist, or that (more likely) the author does not want to name the real regiment involved. SpinningSpark 11:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it didn't exist, but that no sources talk about it as being a placeholder name besides using it as a placeholder name, and that there's no indication there's enough to make a standalone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Through the Lens of the Reader which devotes a few sentences to its use in Middlemarch; "Loamshire, not an existent English county, offers a legible clue to the figurative import of these invented names. The transparently symbolical nomenclature, ..." This from War, Literature and the Arts, likewise, discusses Evelyn Waugh's use of the term. There is also this page which spends a paragraph explaining the term in a footnote to its use in a poem. The latter one is not a strongly RS source but does give a good account of the British Army usage. I know that's not a great deal, but I feel it in my water that Wikipedia ought to have an article on something like this. People may still be interested in it a hundred years from now, which is more than can be said for most of the bios that come up here. SpinningSpark 17:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (second choice: merge to List of fictional regiments of the British Army). For me this is right on the borderline of what would be enough material for a standalone article so as not to overwhelm the list. Spinningspark's comment above though suggests that there is more that can be said. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, as per Thryduulf. Rosario (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 24 October 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.